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

Heading: Objections to the Jury Instructions and the Motion to Quash Mr. Davis' Information

Text: The amended information charged Mr. Davis with multiple counts of forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual abuse and first-degree assault against his two victims. To avoid confusion as to which count referred to which act, each count in the information contained a reference to a specific act recorded on one of the six videotapes recovered during the Spicer investigation. Similarly, each of the verdict-directing instructions submitted by the State included language that, also to avoid confusion, referenced one of the six tapes made by Mr. Davis. For example, Instruction No. 13 stated: As to Count IV, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about May 14, 2006, ... the defendant touched the breast of Marsha Spicer as depicted in Tape B. ... At the guilt-phase instruction conference, defense counsel objected to each of these instructions on the ground that language specifically pointing to a specific piece of evidence is prejudicial. [2] The State responded that the phrases were inserted in an effort to comply with the pattern instructions by directing the jury to the particular acts supporting each count. The trial court overruled defense counsel's objections, and the case was submitted using the State's verdict-directing instructions. Also at the guilt-phase instruction conference, defense counsel objected that Instruction Nos. 70 and 71  which instructed the jury to determine whether mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances  failed to place the burden on the State to prove that mitigating circumstances did not outweigh aggravating circumstances. [3] The court overruled the objections. Defense counsel also requested that the verdict-directing instruction for each of the 26 counts be modified so that the word unanimously would be added to the phrase if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to return a guilty verdict on that count. For example, Instruction No. 5, as modified, would have added the word in brackets and read: As to Count I, if you [unanimously] find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: .... However, unless you [unanimously] find . . . . The court rejected the proposed modification to the language contained in the approved pattern MAI-CR 3d 304.02 format for verdict-directing instructions. On the last day of the guilt phase of Mr. Davis' trial, Mr. Davis moved to quash the information, claiming that it violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in that the State was obligated to list in the information all of the statutory aggravators it sought to prove regarding Mr. Davis' first-degree murder count but had failed to include them. The trial court overruled this motion.