State v. Goucher

16 Citing cases

  1. State v. Emanuel

    683 S.W.3d 348 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    This constitutional provision guarantees a fundamental right that an accused shall enjoy a trial by twelve people that unanimously concur in the guilt of the defendant before he or she can be legally convicted. State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); see also Ramos v. Louisiana, — U.S. —, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 1397, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020) ("There can be no question either that the Sixth Amendment’s unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally.").

  2. State v. Galbreath

    244 S.W.3d 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 9 times

    If timely objection is made to a court's failure to give a required instruction, or to give it in accordance with an accompanying Note On Use, the failure is presumed prejudicial, and the State has the burden to show otherwise. State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 2002); State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 918-19 (Mo.App. 2003). However, this presumption of prejudice disappears if review is waived per Rule 28.03 due to lack of a timely objection.

  3. State v. Beck

    167 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 49 times
    In Beck, this Court concluded that reversible plain error occurred because the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it could consider the actions of multiple assailants in determining whether the defendant acted in self-defense, thereby relieving the State of its burden of proof. 167 S.W.3d at 785–89.

    Both require that if an instruction, affecting substantial rights, is required, it must be in proper form, otherwise it is plain error. See State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 919 (Mo.App. 2003). Inasmuch as the substantive law controls over the form of an approved MAI-CR instruction, State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Mo. banc 1997), to be in "proper form" means that the instruction given must comport with the substantive law.

  4. State v. Hastings

    450 S.W.3d 479 (E.D. Mo. 2014)

    ’ ” State v. Smith, 595 S.W.2d 764, 766 (Mo.App.W.D.1980) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ). “Examples of such errors include: (1) total deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) biased judge; (3) denial of right to self-representation; and (4) lack of a public trial.” State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 917 n.3 (Mo.App.S.D.2003) (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309–10, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) ). Such “structural” errors require automatic reversal, because they “necessarily render[ ] a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.”

  5. State v. Johnson

    599 S.W.3d 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 9 times

    In every criminal case, MAI-CR4th 402.05 must be read to the jury. See MAI-CR4th 402.05, Notes on Use; see alsoState v. Goucher , 111 S.W.3d 915, 916-17 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (finding reversible error when MAI-CR3d 302.05, the predecessor to MAI-CR4th 402.05, was not read to the jury). MAI-CR4th 402.05 was read to the jury in this case.

  6. State v. Carlton

    527 S.W.3d 865 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the defendant's right to a unanimous verdict was violated when the court submitted identical verdict directors on two counts of statutory sodomy, because the record contained evidence that would have allowed the jury to differentiate between the multiple, repeated acts of sodomy allegedly committed during the charged time period

    State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150, 155 (Mo. banc 2011) (citing State v. Hadley, 815 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Mo. banc 1991) ). This guarantee is "a fundamental right," ensuring that the accused, if tried by jury, has "twelve people that unanimously concur in the guilt of the defendant before he or she can be legally convicted," State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003). A necessary prerequisite to unanimously concurring in the defendant's guilt is that the jurors substantially agree as to the defendant's acts that form the basis of the criminal conduct.

  7. State v. Hastings

    450 S.W.3d 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    ’ ” State v. Smith, 595 S.W.2d 764, 766 (Mo.App.W.D.1980) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ). “Examples of such errors include: (1) total deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) biased judge; (3) denial of right to self-representation; and (4) lack of a public trial.” State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 917 n.3 (Mo.App.S.D.2003) (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309–10, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) ). Such “structural” errors require automatic reversal, because they “necessarily render[ ] a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.”

  8. State v. Celis-Garcia

    No. WD69199 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    This provision guarantees that the accused shall enjoy a trial by twelve jurors who unanimously concur in the guilt of the defendant. State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo.App. 2003). In general, the unanimity rule requires the jurors to be in substantial agreement regarding the defendant's specific conduct as a preliminary step in determining whether the defendant is guilty of the charged offense.

  9. State v. Williams

    329 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    ; State v. Tripp, 939 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App. 1997) ("Failure to give an MAI-CR instruction where appropriate is error and failure to follow an accompanying Note on Use is error. . . . However, the prejudicial effect of such error must be judicially determined."). In fact, the only case cited by Defendant related to this assertion, State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915 (Mo.App. 2003), expressly states, "Although an instruction may be mandatory, this opinion should not be read as holding that all instructional error is per se reversible. Most defective instructional procedures are subject to a prejudicial analysis.

  10. State v. D.W.N.

    No. WD69142 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2009)

    D.W.N. argues that in State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 920 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003), the court held that a trial court's plain error in failing to submit an instruction based on MAI-CR3d 302.05, which would have informed the jury that its decision had to be unanimous, was a structural error that required automatic reversal. D.W.N. concedes that the trial court did give an instruction based on MAI-CR3d 302.05, but maintains that, since his claim touches upon the same issue of a defendant's right to a unanimous verdict, the same automatic reversal standard should apply.