Opinion ID: 2270912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Court Commenting about the Evidence

Text: A number of the instructions submitting particular counts included a reference to the particular tape on which the alleged crime was depicted. For instance, 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 ... (emphasis added). [13] This instruction format was used to assist the jury in differentiating the numerous offenses submitted, as contemplated by the Notes on Use for MAI-CR 3d 304.02, which provide, in pertinent part: (c) Multiple OffensesSame Victim, Short Period of Time. If the defendant is charged with more than one crime involving the same victim on the same day, the time should be shown on each instruction as at about [ time of day or night ] on or between the hours of [ time of day or night ] on a specific date. . . . . If it is impossible to fix the occasion of the offense by time or date, the instruction should be modified by the Court to identify the occurrence by some other reference. MAI-CR 3d 304.02(c). Mr. Davis argues that these references were the equivalent of the trial court telling the jurors that the evidence referenced in the instruction would provide proof of the charged offense. While trial courts are barred from conduct during trial that can be construed as demonstrating a belief that the defendant is guilty, State v. Davis, 653 S.W.2d 167, 177 (Mo. banc 1983), overruled on other grounds by, Kuyper v. Stone County Comm'n, 838 S.W.2d 436, 439 (Mo. banc 1992), these references did not constitute such conduct. As the State notes, the references to Tape B and similar references in the verdict directors were appropriate under the Notes on Use direction to identify the occurrences by some other reference. Merely referencing time and date would have been unworkable due to discrepancies in the accuracy of the time and date stamp on the camera used by Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis has not suggested another method by which the jurors could have been informed how to determine which crime was being submitted in which verdict director. Further, Instruction No. 3 advised the jury that the court does not mean to assume as true any fact referred to in these instructions but leaves it to you to determine what the facts are. This language would have acted as a safeguard, reducing the chance the jury assumed that the charged offenses were in fact depicted on the tapes simply because the instructions referred to the tapes as depicting the crimes. Mathes v. Sher Express, L.L.C., 200 S.W.3d 97, 110 (Mo.App.2006) (This instruction reduces the chances of a jury improperly concluding that a controverted fact has been assumed by the court to be true) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the evidence of Mr. Davis' guilt, set out in detail above, was so overwhelming that the references to the tapes in which the crimes were recorded in the verdict directors could not have had a decisive effect on the jury's determination of guilt. The entirety of the portions of the tapes played for the jury provided substantial proof of each of the charged offenses and, in closing argument, Mr. Davis conceded his guilt of all the sex crime counts and assault counts of which he was convicted, only contesting the first-degree murder count and the assault count on which he obtained a not guilty verdict. Overwhelming evidence of guilt may lead an appellate court to find that a defendant was not prejudiced. State v. Banks, 215 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Mo. banc 2007). Because overwhelming evidence established Mr. Davis' guilt for these offenses, any error in use of the as depicted in references to the tapes in the verdict-directing instructions was not prejudicial.