Opinion ID: 1464874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Verdict Director and Verdict Form

Text: In his next point, appellant argues that the trial court erred in submitting the state's verdict director and verdict form because they violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict. Specifically, appellant charges that the disjunctive form of the director, as well as the generalized statement of the charged crime contained in the verdict form, made it impossible to discern which chemical or chemicals appellant was found to have possessed in violation of section 195.420. Therefore, appellant contends, it may well be that less than all of the twelve jurors found him guilty of possession of the same chemical beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict director reads in relevant part: If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about March 10, 2000, in Henry County, Missouri, the defendant possessed methanol or hydrogen peroxide or lighter fluid or naphtha or muriatic acid or pseudoephedrine or ephedrine or acetone, and Second, that the defendant was aware of its presence and nature, and Third, that the defendant did so with the intent to convert, process or alter methanol or hydrogen peroxide or lighter fluid naphtha or muriatic acid or pseudoephedrine or ephedrine or acetone to create methamphetamine, a controlled substance, then you will find the defendant guilty of possession of a chemical with the intent to create a controlled substance. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense. .... As used in this instruction the term controlled substance includes methamphetamine. The verdict form stated: We, the jury, find the defendant Gary Lynn Baker guilty of possession of a chemical with the intent to create a controlled substance as submitted in Instruction No. 6. Because appellant failed to timely challenge the verdict director and verdict form, he seeks plain error review under Rule 30.20. This Court will find plain error only where the alleged error facially establish[es] substantial grounds for believing a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice occurred. State v. Rhodes, 988 S.W.2d 521, 526 (Mo. banc 1999). To establish that the instructional error rose to the level of plain error, appellant must demonstrate that the trial court so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury that it is evident that the instructional error affected the jury's verdict. State v. Nolan, 872 S.W.2d 99, 103 (Mo. banc 1994). Appellant argues that the verdict director and verdict form make it impossible to determine whether the jury did in fact find him guilty of each element beyond a reasonable doubt, because some jurors could have concluded that appellant possessed one of the listed chemicals, while others concluded that he had possessed another. The state concedes technical error in this regard. However, because the evidence at trial established unequivocally that each of the chemicals was found in appellant's residence, which was ample evidence to support a finding that appellant possessed each of the chemicals, no manifest injustice occurred. State v. Mackey, 822 S.W.2d 933, 936 (Mo.App.1991) (finding that the disjunctive form of the instruction did not result in manifest injustice because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support each alternative submission). Finally, appellant alleges that, because the verdict director and verdict form make it impossible to ascertain which chemical he was found to have possessed, he will be unable to plead former jeopardy as to possession of all of the listed chemicals. Appellant offers no authority to support the proposition. Furthermore, the argument was not raised until appeal and is subject only to plain error review on a showing of manifest injustice. Rule 30.20. In any event, the argument is simply not plausible. There is no reason to believe that the state could bring a later claim charging appellant again with possession of the same chemicals. The point is denied.