Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02753/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02753-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Beauchamp
Not Party
Karen Best
Not Party
Jane Doe
Appellee
Jane and John Doe
Not Party
John Doe
Not Party
Wentzville R-IV School District
Not Party
Becky L. Williams
Not Party
Michael D. Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2753

___________

Jane and John Doe, One, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

Jane Doe, One, as next friend of for *

minors, by next friend Mary Doe-One, *

by next friend Ann Doe-One, *

*

Appellee, *

*

Jane and John Doe, Two; Jane Doe, *

Two, as next friend of, a minor, by next *

friend Mary Doe-Two; Jane and John *

Doe, Three; Jane Doe, Three, as next *

friend of a minor, by next friend *

Mary Doe-Three; Jane Doe, Four; *

Jane Doe, Four, as next friend of, a *

minor, by next friend Mary Doe-Four; *

Jane Doe, Five; Jane Doe, Five, as next *

friend of, a minor, by next friend Mary *

Doe-Five; Jane Doe, Six; Jane Doe, *

Seven; John Doe, One; Jane Doe, et al, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

Wentzville R-IV School District; *

Richard Beauchamp, Individually and as *

Principal of East Elementary School; *

Karen Best, Individually, and as *

Appellate Case: 04-2753 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Entry ID: 1912220
-2-

Assistant Principal of East Elementary *

School; Becky L. Williams, *

*

Defendants, *

*

Michael D. Williams, Individually, and *

as a teacher at East Elementary School, *

*

Appellant, *

*

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 04-2757 District Court for the

___________ Eastern District of Missouri.

Jane and John Doe, One, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

Jane Doe, One, as next friend of for *

minors, by next friend Mary Doe-One, *

by next friend Ann Doe-One, *

*

Appellee, *

*

Jane and John Doe, Two; Jane Doe, *

Two, as next friend of, a minor, by next *

friend Mary Doe-Two; Jane and John *

Doe, Three; Jane Doe, Three, as next *

friend of a minor, by next friend Mary *

Doe-Three; Jane Doe, Four; Jane Doe, *

Four, as next friend of, a minor, by next *

friend Mary Doe-Four; Jane Doe, Five; *

Jane Doe, Five, as next friend of, a *

minor, by next friend Mary Doe-Five; *

Jane Doe, Six; Jane Doe, Seven; John *

Doe, One; Jane Doe, et al, *

Appellate Case: 04-2753 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Entry ID: 1912220
-3-

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

Wentzville R-IV School District; *

Richard Beauchamp, Individually and as *

Principal of East Elementary School; *

Karen Best, Individually, and as *

Assistant Principal of East Elementary *

School, *

*

Defendants, *

*

Becky L. Williams, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Michael D. Williams, Individually, and *

as a teacher at East Elementary School, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: May 27, 2005

Filed: June 7, 2005

___________

Before SMITH, FAGG, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-2753 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Entry ID: 1912220
1

The Honorable Henry Edward Autrey, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

-4-

In these consolidated appeals, Michael Williams (Michael) and his wife Becky

Williams (Becky), appeal the district court’s1

 entry of judgment against them for

punitive damages in a civil action for battery and negligent supervision brought by

Jane Doe on behalf of her minor daughters Mary Doe-One (Mary) and Ann Doe-One

(Ann).

In April 2002, the Does brought the instant suit alleging that from August 1993

to March 2001, Michael repeatedly committed acts of sexual molestation on Mary

and Ann, and that in November 2001, Michael pleaded guilty to and was convicted

of multiple counts of statutory rape and statutory sodomy of both Mary and Ann. The

Does reached a settlement agreement with all of the defendants but the Williamses,

and thereafter proceeded only on their claims for punitive damages against the

Williamses. Becky appeared for trial pro se, and the Does and Becky waived trial by

jury, agreed to have the district court determine any award of punitive damages, and

stipulated to the admission of certain evidence, including some of the documents in

the criminal case against the Williamses, and psychological evaluations diagnosing

Mary and Ann with post-traumatic stress disorder. Michael, incarcerated with the

Missouri Department of Corrections, did not appear for trial.

The district court found that Mary and Ann had established their claim of

battery against Michael and their claim of negligent supervision against Becky. The

court imposed punitive damages of $1 million against Michael, because he had

repeatedly--over an 8-year period--committed acts of molestation on Mary and Ann,

and because he did so from a position of authority as their elementary school music

teacher. The court imposed punitive damages of $325,000 against Becky, because

she had not merely facilitated the molestation, but encouraged it.

Appellate Case: 04-2753 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Entry ID: 1912220
-5-

On appeal, the Williamses argue that the amount of punitive damages was

excessive; that under federal criminal law related to restitution for victims, their

economic circumstances should have been taken into account in determining the

amount of punitive damages; and that Michael should have been allowed to be

present at the trial and should have been provided appointed counsel. They also

challenge the legitimacy of the psychological evaluations.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the punitive damages

award was not excessive given that Michael repeatedly sexually molested Mary and

Ann over an 8-year period, and that Becky witnessed and facilitated the molestation.

See Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 435 (2001)

(de novo standard of review); BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574-85

(1996) (in reviewing punitive damages award for excessiveness, due process and

reasonableness requirements compel consideration of degree of reprehensibility of

defendant’s conduct, difference between award and civil or criminal penalties

authorized or imposed in comparable cases, and disparity between harm and punitive

award); Weaver v. African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 54 S.W.3d 575, 589

(Mo. Ct. App. 2001) (noting that degree of reprehensibility of defendant’s conduct

is most important indicium of reasonableness of punitive damages award, and

upholding punitive damages award of $4 million where defendant’s grabbing of

victim’s breasts “was merely the culmination of a long history of far worse verbal and

physical sexual harassment”).

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Michael’s request for appointed counsel, see Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d

538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review); Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th

Cir. 1996) (indigent inmates have no statutory or constitutional right to appointed

counsel for civil litigation); that the district court was not obligated to secure

Michael’s presence at the trial, Fruit v. Norris, 905 F.2d 1147, 1150 n.6 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 04-2753 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Entry ID: 1912220
-6-

1990); and that the Williamses’ remaining arguments lack merit and do not warrant

discussion.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2753 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Entry ID: 1912220