Opinion ID: 2270912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Verdict Director Instructions Were Proper

Text: Mr. Davis also argues that the instructions did not inform the jury adequately that it had to find unanimously that the State proved each element of each crime submitted in order to find against him as to that crime. The same point was raised and rejected in State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561, 575 (Mo. banc 2009). Johnson held that the jury instructions as a whole sufficiently advised the jury that its verdicts on each count must be unanimous as to each element and additional instructions on the requirement of unanimity were not necessary. The Court reaffirms that holding. The jury was instructed, for example, that it could not find Mr. Davis guilty of first-degree murder, unless [it found] and believe[d] from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions. The jury also was instructed: You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself but you should do so only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Your verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must be agreed to by each juror. Although the verdict must be unanimous, the verdict should be signed by your foreperson alone. When you have concluded your deliberations, you will complete the applicable form to which you unanimously agree and return it with all the unused forms and the written instructions of the Court. As this Court noted in Johnson, this language was sufficient to apprise jurors that they must find unanimously every element of a particular offense beyond a reasonable doubt to return a guilty verdict on that offense.