Opinion
No. ED 108983
06-08-2021
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Stanton EISMAN, Appellant.
Katharine P. Curry, 1000 W. Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO. 65203, for appellant. Kristen S. Johnson, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.
Katharine P. Curry, 1000 W. Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO. 65203, for appellant.
Kristen S. Johnson, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.
Angela T. Quigless, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and James M. Dowd, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM Appellant James Eisman appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in St. Louis County convicting him of the unclassified felony of statutory sodomy in the first degree, the class D felony of sexual misconduct involving a child, and the class A misdemeanor of child molestation in the second degree. Eisman argues the trial court (1) abused its discretion by overruling Eisman's motion for severance of Count IV, which involved a different victim, from Counts I-III, and (2) plainly erred in submitting the verdict directors for Counts I, II, and III, because each instruction failed to specify a particular identifiable incident, creating the possibility that the jurors failed to unanimously find him guilty of the same incident on each count.
Eisman was acquitted on the class A misdemeanor charge of attempted sexual misconduct.
As to Eisman's first point on appeal, we find that joinder of the charges against Eisman was proper because the tactics used to commit the crimes are of the same or similar character, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever because, each offense charged was distinct and uncomplicated and the jury was instructed to return separate verdicts for each count. As to Eisman's second point, in light of the State's closing argument, the failure to object to the instructions, and our standard of review under plain error, we find that to the extent any instructional error may have occurred, it did not result in manifest injustice, because the State specifically directed the jury to the particular criminal act in the evidence on which it relied to support each charge. We affirm.
An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).