State v. Patton

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kelso

    391 S.W.3d 515 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 14 times
    Stating that "[o]f course, the only acts upon which the jury must unanimously agree are the facts necessary to constitute the crime.... Thus, it is irrelevant whether the jurors unanimously agree as to a fact non-essential to the commission of the crime."

    A similar issue was addressed by the Southern District in State v. Patton, 229 S.W.3d 631 (Mo.App. S.D.2007). In Patton, the defendant was charged with first-degree child molestation by touching the vagina of a child less than fourteen years of age with his hand.

  2. A.B. v. Juvenile Officer

    447 S.W.3d 799 (W.D. Mo. 2014)

    State v. Kelso, 391 S.W.3d 515, 520 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (citing State v. Potter, 747 S.W.2d 300, 306 (Mo.App. S.D.1988) ). “[T]he crime can only be committed in one way: touching with the purpose to arouse or gratify sexual desire.” Id. (citing State v. Patton, 229 S.W.3d 631, 637 (Mo. App. S.D.2007) ). “Thus, there must be some evidence from which the juvenile court could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Juvenile intended to do the act for the purposes of sexual arousal or gratification.” J.A.H., 293 S.W.3d at 120 (emphasis added).

  3. State v. Woolard

    604 S.W.3d 913 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    is defined as "any touching of another person with the genitals or any touching of the genitals or anus of another person, or the breast of a female person, or such touching through the clothing, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire of any person[,]" [s]ection 566.010(3) (emphasis added)[, t]he type of touching, whether through or underneath the clothing, is inconsequential. State v. Patton, 229 S.W.3d 631, 637 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007). Id.

  4. A.B. v. Juvenile Officer

    447 S.W.3d 799 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Finding juvenile’s act of touching private parts of another minor insufficient alone to establish intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire

    “[T]he crime can only be committed in one way: touching with the purpose to arouse or gratify sexual desire.” Id. (citing State v. Patton, 229 S.W.3d 631, 637 (Mo. App. S.D.2007)). “Thus, there must be some evidence from which the juvenile court could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Juvenile intended to do the act for the purposes of sexual arousal or gratification.”

  5. State v. Peeples

    288 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that evidence of touching of a victim's genitals through clothing was insufficient evidence to support a conviction based on "deviate sexual intercourse," though sufficient to support a conviction of "sexual contact"

    The type of touching, whether through or underneath the clothing, is inconsequential. State v. Patton, 229 S.W.3d 631, 637 (Mo.App. S.D. 2007). Thus, it is clear after reviewing G.B.'s testimony regarding what transpired at the Compton address that Appellant's touching did not rise to the level of deviate sexual intercourse.