State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 02 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | ED 108656 |
| Citation | 619 S.W.3d 138 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jamel JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David A. Bruns, 225 S. Meramec, Suite 110, St. Louis, MO 65105, for appellant.
Richard A. Starnes, Assistant Attorney General, Supreme Court Building, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Jamel Jones (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment, after a jury trial, convicting him of eight counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, four counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, and two counts of first-degree child molestation. The trial court sentenced him as a persistent offender to consecutive 15-year sentences on three counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, three consecutive 10-year sentences on three other counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, concurrent 10-year sentences on the two counts of child molestation, and concurrent 15-year sentences for the remaining two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy and for the four counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, for a total sentence of 75 years of imprisonment. We affirm.
Appellant was charged in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis with eight counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, four counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, and two counts of first-degree child molestation.1 Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following evidence was adduced during the week-long trial.
In 2003 Appellant began a relationship with Wanda Dailey (Mother), the mother of victim daughters, PD2 and AD when PD was "really little" and AD was just born. AD thought of Appellant as her real father. Appellant and Mother had another daughter, JJ, and a son together. The family struggled to meet their basic needs and moved frequently. They lived in very small apartments throughout St. Louis on West Steins, Indiana, Texas, Gravois, and South Grand streets. PD moved between the apartments with Mother's and her father's home in Poplar Bluff. In 2016, PD and her own infant moved into the Gravois apartment with Mother, but they were permanently evicted in December 2016, after an argument turned physical and police became involved.
In February 2017, a suicide note written by AD was discovered at school. It alleged Appellant was molesting her and her sister JJ. AD was taken to the hospital by police and questioned by social worker, Karen Gudic, and by Children's Advocacy Center (CAC) investigator, Tammy Hackworth. JJ and her brother were also taken to the hospital and interviewed. PD alleged Appellant had molested her, too. Appellant turned himself in to the police. He was indicted with fourteen counts of sex offenses against PD, AD, and JJ for events alleged to have occurred from January 1, 2011, though February 2, 2017.
The three victims, PD, AD, and JJ, testified during the September 2019 trial about the various acts of sexual contact they alleged against Appellant. PD was 20 years old, AD was almost 16, and JJ was 13 at trial. They alleged that Appellant inflicted numerous and different kinds of sexual acts on them at different residences over time. The State submitted to the jury the acts and dates in Instruction Nos. 5 through 18.
The alleged acts began between January 1, 2011, and January 1, 2012, when the family lived in the West Steins apartment and PD was in fifth or sixth grade at the Lyon school. PD alleged that while they were playing the game "Four Walls," where everyone hid with the lights off and Appellant would look for them, he would find PD and they would have oral sex. PD explained sex acts would happen on the side of the bed, in the bathroom, or various places in the apartment even though it was small. The State charged first-degree statutory sodomy in Count 5 and instructed the jury in Instruction No. 9, asking them to find Appellant placed his genitals in PD's mouth during this time period. Count 6 also charged first-degree statutory sodomy related to PD, and instructed the jury with Instruction No. 10, asking the jury to find that Appellant placed his mouth on PD's genitals during this time period.
PD testified that Appellant did "sexual things" to her about when she was in fifth grade. PD testified that during the time their family lived in the Indiana apartment, approximately March 7, 2013 through December 31, 2014, Appellant had her get out of bed at night to touch her and have her perform oral sex on him. She said it was not the same every time, but these were things he did to molest her. The State charged Appellant with Count 8, second-degree statutory sodomy, and instructed the jury in Instruction No. 12 to find Appellant guilty if they believed he knowingly placed his genitals in PD's mouth during this time period.
PD also testified there was a time when the other kids were at a park and Mother went to the store. She said Appellant performed oral sex on her on the bathroom floor while they lived in the Indiana apartment. The State charged Appellant in Count 9, second-degree statutory sodomy, and instructed the jury in Instruction No. 13, to find Appellant guilty for knowingly placing his mouth on PD's genitals during the time period from March 7, 2013 to December 31, 2014. PD also testified Appellant touched her with his hand as one of the ways he molested her. Appellant did this when everyone else was asleep. The State charged Appellant with Count 10, second-degree statutory sodomy, and also asked the jury to find Appellant guilty of acts occurring during the same time period – March 7, 2013, through December 31, 2014. Instruction No. 14 asked the jury to find Appellant guilty if they believed he knowingly touched PD's genitals with his hand during this time.
AD testified that Appellant started to touch her "private areas" when she was doing gymnastics moves in a swimsuit. He made her promise not to tell anyone. He also started touching her "behind" over her swimsuit. AD testified that for the time period of May 1, 2014 through October 14, 2015, when she was 11 years old and the family was living in an apartment on Texas, Appellant touched her vagina over her clothes. She provided general details about putting on clothing before he touched her this way. She said Appellant threatened to kill AD's mother if AD ever told anyone about the abuse. The State charged Appellant with Count 1, child molestation, and instructed the jury in Instruction No. 5 to find him guilty if they believed he touched AD's genitals through her clothing during this time period.
During the time period from March 28, 2016, to November 1, 2016, when the family lived in the Gravois apartment, JJ remembered Appellant touching her vagina with his mouth on one occasion. Appellant cross-examined JJ to impeach her credibility regarding her deposition testimony that she was touched this way 25 percent of the 100 times of abuse, or five times, but the deposition testimony was not properly admitted for its truth as substantive evidence. The State charged Appellant with Count 12, statutory sodomy in the first degree, and instructed the jury in Instruction No. 16 to find Appellant guilty of the crime if they believed he knowingly placed his mouth on JJ's genitals during this time period when JJ was less than twelve years old.
During a very limited time when the family lived in the Grand/"Bates" apartment, AD testified that Appellant committed several acts of sexual misconduct. She said "sometimes" it happened in the back room, sometimes in the front room, sometimes when her sister was around, sometimes when she was sitting up, and sometimes when she was lying down. The State charged Appellant with Count 2, first-degree statutory sodomy, and instructed the jury in Instruction No. 6 to find Appellant guilty if they found he knowingly touched AD's genitals with his hand during this time when AD was less than fourteen years old.
AD further testified that Appellant would put his mouth on her breasts during this time period, sometimes to get her horny before he touched her vagina. The State charged Appellant with Count 3, child molestation, and instructed the jury in Instruction No. 7 to find Appellant guilty if they believed he touched the breasts of AD with his mouth during this time period when AD was less than fourteen years old.
JJ testified that during the time her family lived in the Gravois apartment, starting when she was ten years old, she remembered Appellant touching her genitals with his hand. She was not certain of the day or time it happened, nor could she recall how many times. She knew it happened more than once. The State charged Appellant in Count 11 with first-degree statutory sodomy and instructed the jury in Instruction No. 15 to find Appellant guilty if they believed that he knowingly touched JJ's genitals with his hand during this time period.
JJ also testified she remembered touching Appellant's penis one time when they lived at the Gravois apartment and did not do so anywhere else. She said Appellant put his hand next to hers and just did nothing. During a deposition not admitted for its truth, she testified she did "less than five times." The State charged Appellant in Count 13 with statutory sodomy in the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Welch
...also maintains, before trial, defense counsel agreed to the admission of Exhibit 17. Thus, the State argues appellate review is improper. See id. Collins, 188 S.W.3d at 77). Additionally, the State argues, if appellate review is warranted, the trial court did not err in failing to sua spont......
-
State v. Crosby
...this alleged error for appellate review, this Court can still review unpreserved claims for plain error"). But see State v. Jones , 619 S.W.3d 138 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (holding plain error review of prior and persistent finding waived).9 The finding of guilt entered in 2017 was sufficient u......
-
State v. Lowery, ED 110259
...to support a jury's verdict, we look to the elements of the crime. State v. Grim , 854 S.W.2d 403, 411 (Mo. banc 1993) ; State v. Jones , 619 S.W.3d 138, 155 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). A person commits murder in the second degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the pu......
- State v. Lowery