State v. Ogle
1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3586, 627 S.W.2d 73 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a mandatory pattern jury instruction (MAI-CR2d) requires a specific definition for a statutory term that constitutes an essential element of the offense, the trial court's failure to provide that definition constitutes prejudicial error unless the contrary clearly appears, warranting a new trial.
Facts:
- The defendant and two friends accompanied Bonnow to the prosecutrix's house, believing she knew about stolen stereos.
- Bonnow was 'roughed up,' and the defendant kicked him, prompting Bonnow to escape by jumping out a window.
- The prosecutrix rode with the men to a closed police station to file a false complaint against Bonnow for breaking her window.
- Later, the defendant returned to the prosecutrix's house, forced his way inside, pushed her into the bedroom, hit her three times with an open hand, and drew back his fist, compelling her to disrobe and engage in sexual intercourse.
- The prosecutrix escaped by jumping through the same window Bonnow had used, ran through the snow to a neighbor's house, and called the police.
- A young man (prosecutrix's boyfriend) was in the house when the defendant returned but fled by the back door after seeing the defendant push and hit the prosecutrix, without seeking aid.
- The defendant testified the prosecutrix invited him back, willingly disrobed, and then panicked and falsely accused him of rape when a noise was heard on the porch.
- A medical examination that night did not conclusively establish recent sexual intercourse.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury found the defendant guilty of the class B felony of rape by forcible compulsion.
- The trial court found the defendant to be a persistent offender and sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment.
- The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment to this court, contending the trial court failed to give a mandatory instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the trial court's failure to give a mandatory MAI-CR2d instruction defining 'serious physical injury' (a term used in the definition of 'forcible compulsion' for a rape charge) constitute prejudicial error requiring a new trial?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
Yes, the trial court's failure to give a mandatory instruction defining 'serious physical injury' was prejudicial error, requiring a new trial. Note on Use 3 to MAI-CR2d 20.02.1 explicitly states that a separate instruction 'must be given' defining 'serious physical injury' if used in any instructions. While the trial court defined 'forcible compulsion' to include 'reasonable fear of death, serious physical injury or kidnapping,' it failed to provide the statutory definition for 'serious physical injury' itself. This omission constitutes error, and by Criminal Rule 28.02(e), its prejudicial effect must be judicially determined, which 'must be deemed prejudicial unless the contrary clearly appears' (State v. Lasley). Instructions must cover all essential elements of an offense, and while words of common usage do not require definition, technical terms whose meaning may not be readily comprehended by laypersons should be defined (State v. Jackson). The term 'serious physical injury' is statutorily defined as 'physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ' (§ 556.061(24)). This statutory definition differs significantly from its ordinary meaning. Since the jury returned a general verdict of guilty, it is impossible to determine whether they found the intercourse was accomplished by physical force or by reasonable fear of serious physical injury. This court must consider the case as if the jury determined it was accomplished by fear of serious physical injury. Without the statutory definition, the jury was not informed of an essential element of rape by forcible compulsion. The court cannot assume the jury would have made the required determination if properly instructed, nor can it reason deductively from the verdict to the jury's actual intention where an instruction was erroneously omitted. Therefore, the judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of strict compliance with mandatory pattern jury instructions, particularly those defining statutory terms that constitute essential elements of a criminal offense. By emphasizing that a statutory definition differing from common understanding must be provided, the court ensures that juries are fully and accurately informed, preventing potential misapplication of the law. The ruling reinforces that such errors are presumptively prejudicial, placing a high burden on the prosecution to demonstrate harmlessness, which is nearly impossible with a general verdict that might rest on the undefined term. This decision serves as a stern reminder to trial courts regarding procedural exactitude in jury instruction to uphold due process and ensure fair trials.
