State v. Ragland

Decision Date26 July 2016
Docket NumberNo. ED 102671,ED 102671
Citation494 S.W.3d 613
Parties State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jacob Ragland, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

494 S.W.3d 613

State of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Jacob Ragland, Appellant.

No. ED 102671

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four .

FILED: July 26, 2016


Chris Koster, Gregory L. Barnes, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

Timothy Forneris, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

KURT S. ODENWALD, JUDGE

Introduction

Appellant Jacob Ragland (“Ragland”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict convicting Ragland of six counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, three counts of first-

494 S.W.3d 618

degree child molestation, and two counts of use of a child in a sexual performance for acts committed against J.J. and J.F., both minor children. Ragland was acquitted of five other counts pertaining to a third minor child, S.J. On appeal, Ragland contends that the trial court (1) erred in admitting evidence of J.F.'s out-of-court statements under Section 491.075; (2) erred in admitting evidence of J.J.'s out-of-court statements under Section 491.075; (3) abused its discretion in sending State's Exhibits 7, 9, and 11—videos of J.F., J.J., and S.J.'s Children's Advocacy Center (“CAC”) interviews—to the jury during deliberations without supervision or limiting instructions; (4) clearly erred in overruling Ragland's motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the two counts of use of a child in a sexual performance because the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that Ragland “watched” the performance; and (5) abused its discretion in refusing to allow the jury to take notes during the trial.

Because the time, content, and circumstances of J.F.'s and J.J.'s out-of-court statements provided sufficient indicia of reliability, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these statements at trial under Section 491.075. Because the CAC interview videos to which Ragland objects were not testimonial in nature, the trial court did not plainly err in allowing the jury access to the videos during deliberation. Because the State presented sufficient evidence supporting Ragland's conviction on two counts of use of a child in a sexual performance, the trial court did not clearly err in overruling Ragland's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all of the evidence. Finally, trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting note-taking by jurors when the request was made after the first prosecution witness had already testified. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural History

Ragland was charged with six counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, three counts of first-degree child molestation, and two counts of use of a child in a sexual performance for acts committed against J.J. and J.F. Ragland was charged with five other counts pertaining to S.J.

On March 23, 2014, the State filed its Notice of Intention to Use Statements pursuant to Section 491.075.3—specifically, out-of-court statements made by J.F. and J.J.1 The State sought to use statements made by J.F. to his aunt, Carmen Jackson (“Carmen”), his mother, Jasmine Kidd (“Jasmine”),2 and Connilee Christie (“Christie”) of the CAC. The State also gave notice of its intent to use statements made by J.J. to his mother, Carmen, and to Pamela Musgrave (“Musgrave”) of the CAC. The trial court held a Section 491 hearing (“491 Hearing”) on September 22 and 23, 2014.

I. 491 Hearing

A. Jasmine's Testimony

Jasmine's testimony at the 491 Hearing consisted of the following facts. Jasmine testified that Carmen told her J.F. had said something while playing video games that led Carmen to believe Ragland may have touched J.F. inappropriately. At that

494 S.W.3d 619

point, Jasmine and Carmen began questioning J.F. about what happened; Ragland and Jasmine's boyfriend, Marcus Dukes (“Marcus”), were present in the room. Jasmine asked J.F., “did it happen?” and he said “no.” Marcus then took J.F. on a walk by himself. When Marcus and J.F. returned, Marcus told Jasmine that she should keep talking to J.F. to uncover the truth, because J.F. made a comment to Marcus that “the first time it happened was at Little Dan's house.”3

Jasmine continued to question J.F., again with all four adults present. Jasmine specifically asked J.F. if Ragland had touched him, not if anyone generally had touched him. Jasmine stated that she and the other adults questioned J.F. for thirty minutes. Jasmine asked J.F. if he told Carmen “that [Ragland] had been messing with [him],” and he said “yes.” J.F. had a look on his face like he might be lying or scared, so Jasmine had him take off his clothes. Jasmine stated that J.F. answered “yes” prior to taking his clothes off, and that the purpose of having J.F. take off his clothes was to “get the truth out of him,” to “get to the bottom” of things, because J.F. is “scared of whoopings.” After telling J.F. to take off his clothes, Jasmine told him “that if he was lying he was going to be in trouble,” and that “[i]f he was not lying that he just needed to keep letting us know, keep telling us the whole story and let us know what happened.” Jasmine denied that she threatened to beat J.F. at any point, but stated that she was holding a belt.

Jasmine testified that she said the following to J.F.: “If you're lying then you're going to get in trouble, but if you're not lying you're not going to get in trouble, and I'm not going to whoop you, but I need to know the truth, because I don't... want to say that this man did something to ... you and he gets in trouble if he didn't do nothing to you.” J.F. then began crying and starting to “tell the story,” stating that “[Ragland] made [J.J.] suck on him while they was in the house” on Saloma while Jasmine and Marcus were gone. J.F. pointed to his penis to indicate where Ragland made J.J. suck on him.

Finally, Jasmine testified that she had a private conversation with J.F. later that same night. J.F. told Jasmine and Marcus that Ragland made J.J. “do the sucking on his private area thing” twice at the house on Saloma. J.F. also told Jasmine and Marcus that Ragland made J.F. and J.J. play a game in the basement of Little Dan's house while everyone else was sleeping, in which Ragland made J.J. touch J.F.'s penis.

B. Carmen's Testimony

Carmen's testimony at the 491 Hearing consisted of the following facts. She and J.F. were playing video games when J.F. made a comment about “sucking” at the game, followed by “something in reference to [Ragland] and him sucking.”4 Carmen then asked J.F. if Ragland had touched him; J.F. initially said “no” and then “a few seconds later” put his head down and said “yes.” Carmen responded by asking

494 S.W.3d 620

where Ragland had touched J.F., who responded that Ragland had touched him “where he's not supposed to.”

Carmen confirmed that Jasmine questioned J.F. while both she and Ragland were present. Carmen also testified that, after forty-five minutes to one hour of denying that Ragland touched him, J.F. told Jasmine that Ragland had touched him. Carmen stated that Jasmine did not make J.F. take off his clothes, but that Jasmine did “get out a belt.” When Jasmine got the belt out, J.F. “kept saying ‘Yes, it happened and then no, it didn't happen.’ ” Carmen testified that Jasmine told J.F. that if he said Ragland did not touch him, and she found out he was lying, “she was going to beat him until he bled.”

Carmen also spoke with her own children, including J.J., after J.F.'s disclosure. Carmen's children told her Ragland had never touched them. However, Carmen later had an individual conversation with J.J. after Ragland was in jail; Carmen asked J.J. if Ragland had ever touched him in a place where he is not supposed to be touched. J.J. responded that Ragland did, stating that Ragland “was sucking on him in his genital areas and had [J.J.] sucking on [Ragland].”

Finally, Carmen testified that at some point, she learned that S.J. had offered to pay J.J. money to tell the CAC interviewer that Ragland had touched him, although S.J. never actually paid J.J. J.J. later claimed to have told the CAC interviewer that Ragland touched him “because [S.J.] said she was going to pay me to say that.”

C. CAC Interview Evidence

Musgrave testified that she conducted a CAC interview of J.J., who was nine years old at the time. Musgrave stated that J.J. understood her questions and was able to provide answers. The interview was videotaped and admitted into evidence at the 491 Hearing.

Christie testified that she conducted a CAC interview of J.F., who was seven years old at the time. Christie stated that J.F. was able to provide answers to her questions but sometimes seemed confused, so she rephrased some questions. Christie had to rephrase her questions more frequently than normal for a seven-year-old, but stated that she was able to do so in a way that was not leading. Christie also testified that when J.F. mentioned his “wee-wee,” she asked him if anyone had ever touched his wee-wee; he responded that Ragland had. Christie stated that in her professional opinion, she would not consider her question to be a leading question. The interview was videotaped and admitted into evidence at the 491...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • In re A.C.C.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 2, 2018
    ...we determine whether the trial court committed plain error, which is error that is "evident, obvious, and clear." State v. Ragland , 494 S.W.3d 613, 627 (Mo.App.E.D. 2016) (internal citations omitted). If we find plain error, we look to the second prong: whether, as a result of the error, a......
  • State v. Antle
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 28, 2023
    ...... State v. Hawkins , 604 S.W.3d 785, 791 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). A. circuit court abuses its discretion in admitting a. child's out-of-court statements under § 491.075 when. its findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the. record. State v. Ragland , 494 S.W.3d 613, 622 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). "'A trial court has broad. discretion to admit or exclude evidence at trial.'". . 7 . . Hawkins , 604 S.W.3d at 791 (quoting State v. Perry , 275 S.W.3d 237, 245 n.5 (Mo. 2009)). "The. trial court abuses its ......
  • State v. Jones
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 25, 2020
    ...We review a trial court’s decision to admit a child’s statements under Section 491.075 for abuse of discretion. State v. Ragland , 494 S.W.3d 613, 622–23 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). We find no abuse of discretion here. The out-of-court statements of a child are admissible in a criminal trial unde......
  • State v. Bailey
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 31, 2020
    ...point is only preserved for appellate review if it is based on the same argument presented to the trial court. State v. Ragland , 494 S.W.3d 613, 627 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing State v. Johnson , 207 S.W.3d 24, 43 (Mo. banc 2006) ). At trial he objected to the use of the transcript, but o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT