State v. Fields

624 S.W.3d 414

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Justin A. FIELDS, Appellant.

WD 81843

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: May 11, 2021

Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, and Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Atorneys for Respondent.

Rosemary E. Percival, Assistant Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, and Alok Ahuja and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge

Mr. Justin A. Fields ("Fields") appeals from the judgment after jury trial of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri ("trial court"), in which Fields was convicted of attempted forcible rape. On appeal, Fields claims the trial court committed reversible error in overruling his objection to the prosecutor's questioning of the venire panel during voir dire. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background¹

On the night of June 21, 2013, L.H.² and her friends attended a party. Fields attended that same party. As the party came to an end and L.H.’s friends left, L.H. asked her cousin if he could take her home. Her cousin agreed to give her a ride home and informed L.H. that his friend, Fields, would be riding along with them. The three of them rode together in the front seat of the small sports car that L.H.’s cousin was driving. During the ride to L.H.’s home, Fields repeatedly groped L.H. by rubbing on her thighs. L.H. asked him to stop and removed his hand multiple times.

When they arrived at L.H.’s home, L.H.’s cousin asked if he and Fields could stay awhile because they were too drunk to continue to drive. L.H. agreed to allow them to stay and told them that they could sleep on the couch. L.H. went to her bedroom and called her boyfriend, who was at work. Fields, thereafter, entered L.H.’s bedroom, to which L.H. responded by telling Fields to get out and that she was on the phone with her boyfriend. Fields did leave her room after that exchange but returned a short time later. When he returned, he closed the door behind him and, believing he had locked it, grabbed L.H. around her waist. Although L.H. told him to leave, he did not leave.

Fields pushed L.H. down on the bed and attempted to have sex with her. But L.H. resisted and tried to push Fields off of her. L.H. called out for her cousin, but Fields told her that her cousin could not hear her. Fields proceeded to kiss and lick L.H. Although she resisted his aggression, Fields responded by shoving L.H. onto her stomach. Fields then attempted to penetrate her with his penis, but L.H.’s resistance prevented him from continuing the assault.

L.H. broke free of Fields's grasp and ran to the kitchen to retrieve a knife. She then screamed for her cousin and Fields to leave her home, and told them that she was calling the police. Fields and L.H.’s cousin hurriedly left her apartment. L.H. rushed to call the police while simultaneously chasing down the vehicle Fields occupied to record the license plate of the car. The police soon arrived and L.H. was taken to the hospital where she underwent physical and psychological examinations.

Fields's DNA was subsequently recovered from L.H.’s body.

On December 16, 2016, a grand jury indicted Fields on one count of forcible rape and one count of forcible sodomy. The jury trial commenced on April 2, 2018. On voir dire the following exchange occurred:

[Prosecutor]: I would like for you to think of a major life event, say getting married, having a baby, getting a new job and talking to people about that big life event. Do you think you would tell that story the same every single time that you talk about that major life event? Does anybody here think—

[Defense Counsel]: Judge, can we approach?

The Court: You may.

(The following proceedings held at sidebar.)

[Defense Counsel]: I don't understand how this line of questioning is going to the heart of who can be fair and impartial in this case.

The Court: I overrule the objection. I understand the question as phrased. Because it's asking about an element of the credibility issue and I've heard the question before and thought it was appropriate. Overruled.

The prosecutor then followed up by asking if anyone would hold it against any of the witnesses if "they can't tell the story the exact same with the exact same detail every single time" and no one on the venire panel responded. The prosecutor then asked the venire panel whether any of them had been to a haunted house (i.e. , a scary event); after which she asked one of the responding venirepersons whether they could remember specific details about the experience, and defense counsel again objected:

I don't understand where she's going with this line of questioning. She's asking someone about a haunted house and what they remember. How does that go to whether or not this person can be fair and impartial in this case and judge the credibility of witnesses?

Again, the trial court overruled the objection. The question drew mixed reactions. Some venirepersons responded that they could not remember all the specific details, but others responded that if it was a "major life event," they would recall those details.

At the conclusion of the jury trial, Fields was convicted on count one of the lesser-included offense of attempted forcible rape and acquitted on count two of the charge of forcible sodomy. Fields filed a motion for a new trial after the verdict in which he argued that the trial court erred in overruling his objection during voir dire. The motion was denied and, thereafter, Fields was sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment in the Department of Corrections.

Fields timely appeals.

Analysis

I.

Fields asserts one point on appeal. He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor's above-recited line of questions during voir dire. On appeal, Fields claims that the question "argued the State's theory of the case and sought a commitment ... thereby pre-conditioning the jurors." However, this is not the same objection that Fields asserted to the trial court during voir dire.

During voir dire, Fields's objection was, "I don't understand how this line of questioning is going to the heart of who can be fair and impartial in this case" and in the second objection to the haunted house question, Fields added, "[h]ow does that go to whether or not this person can ... judge the credibility of witnesses."

The theory upon which the objection was made must be the same theory that is presented in the motion for a new trial and the same theory that is raised on appeal. State v. Lewis , 243 S.W.3d 523, 524 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (citing State v. Tisius , 92 S.W.3d 751, 767 (Mo. banc 2002) ). An appellant may not "broaden or change allegations of error on appeal." Id. (citing State v. Cartwright , 17 S.W.3d 149, 154 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) ).

Fields has not maintained the same theory for his objections below as compared to his objection lodged on appeal. During voir dire, Fields objected that the question did not go "to the heart of who can be fair and impartial"—essentially arguing that the prosecutor's questions were not relevant to the purposes of a voir dire examination. But on appeal, Fields asserts an expanded basis for his objection—that the question "argued the State's theory of the case and sought a commitment ... thereby pre-conditioning the jurors." Because an appellant is not permitted to "broaden or change allegations of error on appeal," Lewis , 243 S.W.3d at 524, Fields has not preserved his current claim of error for appellate review.

Where a claim of error is not properly preserved for appellate review, we may review an appellant's claim for plain error. State v. Clay , 533 S.W.3d 710, 718 (Mo. banc 2017). "[P]lain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom." Rule 30.20 ; State v. Johnson , 524 S.W.3d 505, 513 (Mo. banc 2017). Under the plain error standard of review, we must first determine whether the claimed error is, in fact, plain error affecting substantial rights. Id. "An error is plain if it is ‘evident, obvious, and clear.’ " Id. If plain error affecting substantial rights is found, we must next determine whether the error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. Id. " ‘Manifest injustice is determined by the facts and circumstances of the case, and the defendant bears the burden of establishing manifest injustice.’ " Id. (quoting State v. Baxter , 204 S.W.3d 650, 652 (Mo. banc 2006) ). Here, we conclude that the trial court did not err, plainly or otherwise, nor can Fields establish any manifest injustice to the prosecutor's line of questioning during voir dire.

Though "[a] defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial jury," State v. Celian , 613 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (citing State v. Clark , 981 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Mo. banc 1998) ), and " ‘[t]he purpose of voir dire is to discover bias or prejudice in order to select a fair and impartial jury,’ " State v. Conaway , 557 S.W.3d 372, 377 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting Clark , 981 S.W.2d at 146 ), "[t]here is no rigid formula for an adequate voir dire." State v. Ousley , 419 S.W.3d 65, 73 (Mo. banc 2013). "Consequently, a liberal latitude is allowed in the examination of jurors, as long as the scope of voir dire remains commensurate with its purpose to discover bias or prejudice in order to select a fair and impartial jury." Id. ; see also Clark , 981 S.W.2d at 146 (explaining that the trial court is given wide discretion over the examination of prospective jurors during voir dire).

Bias or prejudice often cannot be ferreted out with "general fairness and follow-the-law questions." State v. Nicklasson , 967 S.W.2d 596, 611 (Mo. banc 1998). Thus, "[s]ome inquiry into relevant and critical facts of the case is essential to the search for bias." State v. Ezell , 233 S.W.3d 251, 253 (Mo. App....