unanimity instruction in Missouri

2024State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); see also Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 1397 (2020) (“There can be no question either that the Sixth Amendment’s unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally.”).

2023In Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1397 (2020), the Supreme Court of the United States held that "[t]here can be no question . . . that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally." 9 Article I, section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "the right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate." Our Supreme Court has interpreted this provision "as protecting 'all the substantial incidents and consequences that pertain to the right to jury trial at common law.'" Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d at

2023In Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1397 (2020), the Supreme Court of the United States held that "[t]here can be no question . . . that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally." 9 Article I, section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "the right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate." Our Supreme Court has interpreted this provision "as protecting 'all the substantial incidents and consequences that pertain to the right to jury trial at common law.'" Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d at

2017Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d at 158 .

2024State v. Goucher, 111 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); see also Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 1397 (2020) (“There can be no question either that the Sixth Amendment’s unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally.”).

2024Goucher held a defendant did not need to show manifest injustice to establish 7 plain error from a trial court’s failure to give a unanimity instruction because such an error is analogous to “structural errors” under federal precedent and “reversible error per se.” Id. at 920 .

2023State v. Hunt, 503 P.3d 1067, 1076 (stating that, had the victim testified incidents of abuse occurred “one day in the bedroom and on another day in the living room and on another day in the kitchen,” a specific unanimity instruction would have been required).

2023In Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1397 (2020), the Supreme Court of the United States held that "[t]here can be no question . . . that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally." 9 Article I, section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "the right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate." Our Supreme Court has interpreted this provision "as protecting 'all the substantial incidents and consequences that pertain to the right to jury trial at common law.'" Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d at

2018Accordingly, we find no manifest injustice."); Ashkins, 357 P.3d at 502 ("[W]e conclude that there is little likelihood that, if it had been given the concurrence instruction that defendant requested, the jury would have reached a different result.

2018United States v. Gipson, 553 F.2d 453 , 457-58 (5th Cir. 1977) ("The unanimity rule ... requires jurors to be in substantial agreement as to just what a defendant did as a step preliminary to determining whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.").

2018Even given this majority rule, however, many courts have declined to reverse "for a failure to give a specific unanimity instruction in multiple-acts cases where the evidence concerning the alleged acts was not materially or conceptually distinct or the same blanket or generic defense was proffered with respect to all of the acts." Id. at 805.

2018Id. at 806. "[I]n light of defendant's blanket defense to the charges against him, he was not prejudiced by the omission of a specific unanimity instruction, and thus there is no plain error." Id. at 807.

2017State v. Escobar, WD79163, 523 S.W.3d 545, 549 , 2017 WL 2644090, at *3 (Mo. App. W.D.

2017See e.g., id.; Hoeber v. State, 488 S.W.3d 648, 653 (Mo. banc 2016).

2011While it is certainly possible for multiple steps to be involved in a single attempt to commit rape, cf. State v. Young, 139 S.W.3d 194, 197-98 (Mo.App.