724 S.W.2d 646 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1986
Defendant appeals his jury conviction of attempted rape. The court sentenced defendant to eight years in the Missouri Department of Corrections and defendant timely filed his notice of appeal.
Defendant raises two points of error: (1) that the court erred in giving MAI-CR 1.02 and 2.20; and (2) that the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence.
The defendant claims the court erred by giving MAI-CR 1.02 and 2.20. The defendant alleges these instructions improperly define reasonable doubt and therefore reduce the state’s burden of proof. This point has been frequently raised of late and has been repeatedly rejected by our appellate courts. State v. Turner, 705 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Mo.App.1986). “Once a pattern instructions has been adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court, the Appellate Courts are powerless to declare the instructions erroneous.” Id., at 110.
The complained of instructions are, in fact, mandatory and follow the dictates of § 546.070(4), RSMo Cum.Supp.1984, and must be given in all criminal proceedings. MAI-CR2d 2.20, Notes on Use 2; Rule 28.02(a). In MAI-CR2d 1.02 the Notes on Use (1) and (3) provide that the court: (1) must read to the jury MAI-CR 1.02 before voir dire examination, Rule 28.02(a); and (3) the burden of proof instruction included herein is the same as MAI-CR 2.20. Defendant’s Point I is denied.
Defendant next complains that his overtures toward the victim were misinterpreted; that he only intended to make love to her and he did not intend to attempt to rape her.
The facts speak for themselves. The victim lived with her 10-year-old daughter in an apartment located in Independence, Missouri. She had lived there four years and the defendant was a resident there when she moved in.
On the day in question the victim had seen her daughter off to school and gone
Apparently the jury believed the defendant had by his actions demonstrated a specific intent to engage in nonconsensual intercourse with the victim. It is clear that his actions and her protestations could have contributed to this belief by the jury.
The evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and contrary evidence or inferences drawn therefrom, should be disregarded. State v. Newhart, 539 S.W.2d 486, 487 (Mo.App.1976); State v. McDonald, 661 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Mo. banc 1983); State v. Franco, 544 S.W.2d 533, 534 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 957, 97 S.Ct. 2682, 53 L.Ed.2d 275 (1977).
Specific intent to engage in sexual intercourse without consent is an essential element of the crime of attempted rape. State v. Roden, 674 S.W.2d 50, (Mo.App.1984).
Appellant’s contention that the state’s evidence failed to demonstrate a specific intent on defendant’s part to engage in sexual intercourse without the victim’s consent lacks credibility and in view of the facts, indeed strains one’s finer senses. Defendant’s Point II is denied.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.