Sign Up for Vincent AI
State v. Weston
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri, The Honorable William B. Collins, Judge
Evan Buchheim, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
David Andrew Kelly, Lee’s Summit, MO, for appellant.
Before Division Four: Gary D. Witt, Chief Judge, Presiding, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge and W. Page Bellamy, Special Judge
Jacob Charles Weston ("Weston") appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri ("trial court"), convicting him, after a jury trial, of four counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree against two separate victims, section 566.062.1 For Counts I-III, Weston was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each count, and ten years’ imprisonment for Count V, with all sentences ordered to be served consecutively to each other for a total sentence of 55 years. Weston was acquitted on Count IV, which charged him with the offense of child molestation in the first degree. Weston raises four points on appeal: Point I, the trial court erred in overruling Weston’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove each element of the four sodomy counts; Point II, the trial court erred in overruling Weston’s motion for new trial because the State’s cross examination of him was argumentative and highly prejudicial; Point III, the trial court erred in overruling Weston’s motion for new trial because the State improperly argued past and future dangerousness in closing argument, which prejudiced Weston; and Point IV, the trial court erred in overruling Weston’s motion for new trial because the State’s errors were cumulatively sufficient to violate Weston’s rights to a fair trial. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
[1] A.W. lived in Missouri with her maternal grandmother, as well as her mother ("Mother"), and her mother’s brother, Weston, from 2016 through 2017 when the offenses against her occurred. A.W. was between four and five years old. While A.W. stayed with Mother, there were times when Weston was alone with A.W.
During this time period, A.W.’s Mother and father ("Father") were not married and had no formal custody arrangement, but there was a verbal, mutual agreement between them.3 For the summer of 2017, Father and Mother agreed that Father would come to Missouri to get A.W. and bring her back to his home in Texas. During Father’s parenting time, A.W. saw Father changing his infant son’s diaper. A.W. pointed to the infant’s private area and asked what it was. Father stated the infant son, "has a wiener" and A.W. replied, "Like my Uncle [Weston]." Father asked A.W. why she would say that and A.W. disclosed she saw Weston’s penis. At the time of the disclosure A.W. was five years old. Father called Mother to tell her what A.W. said. Following that conversation Father called the Division of Family Services in Texas, and Mother called the Children’s Division in Missouri to make reports of A.W.’s disclosure. The next day, Father took A.W. to the Alliance for Children in Fort Worth, Texas, for a videotaped forensic interview. During the interview, A.W. said Weston made her "touch his no no" and he wanted A.W. to "lick it" and if she did, Weston would then give her a treat.4 The forensic interviewer asked A.W. clarifying questions and A.W. confirmed Weston wanted her to "lick" his penis with her tongue, and put it inside her mouth. A.W. also disclosed that Weston told her he was going to "lick" A.W.’s "no-no" and that he did. A.W. told the interviewer that after both incidents, Weston told her to keep it a secret.
After the forensic interview, A.W. was taken to Cook Children’s Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, for a sexual assault examination. During the exam, A.W. told the forensic nurse that Weston had touched her and she pointed to her genitals, breasts, and buttocks. A.W, also indicated Weston touched her vagina with his finger. A.W. told the nurse she had to touch Weston and demonstrated how she had to make a fist and move it up and down, "Like this." The forensic nurse did not find any physical signs of sexual abuse.
In December 2017, a detective with the Belton Police Department began to review AW.’s forensic interview and her medical records as part of an investigation into her abuse. While investigating A.W.’s allegations of abuse, an additional investigation was started involving another potential victim, N.C.
Between 2010 and 2011, N.C.’s mother was dating Mother’s other brother ("Boyfriend"). During that time period, Boyfriend lived in Cass County, Missouri, and hosted a family gathering where both N.C. and Weston were present. At the time of the family gathering, N.C. was roughly four years old. During the event, Boyfriend went downstairs to find Weston and saw Weston and N.C. under a blanket. N.C. quickly popped out from under the blanket, near Weston's knees, Both N.C. and Weston were fully clothed. Boyfriend was concerned at what he saw, and informed N.C.’s mother. After finding them, Boyfriend asked N.C. if anything happened between her and Weston, and she said no. N.C.’s mother also asked N.C. if anything happened, to which N.C. replied no.
In 2020, Mother contacted N.C.’s mother and told her about the incident between A.W. and Weston. Mother also spoke with N.C.’s mother about the situation that happened with N.C. and Weston at the family gathering nearly ten years prior. N.C.’s mother was then contacted by the detective, and she spoke with him about the incident with N.C. and Weston. Subsequently, N.C.’s mother asked N.C., who was then fifteen years old, if anything happened to her at the family gathering at Boyfriend’s place. When asked, N.C. closed down and did not respond. Nearly a week later, N.C.’s mother asked again and N.C. said Weston touched her "private parts" over her clothing.
After N.C.’s disclosure to her mother, N.C. was taken to the Child Protection Center in Kansas City, Missouri for a videotaped forensic interview. During the interview N.C. said while she was at Boyfriend’s house, Weston touched her "lower part" on the skin with his hand.5
On August 26, 2021, Weston was indicted on five counts. Counts I, II, and III charged that Weston committed the offense of statutory sodomy in the first degree against A.W. Count V charged that Weston committed the offense of statutory sodomy in the first degree against N.C. Count IV charged that Weston committed the offense of child molestation in the first degree against A.W.
The jury trial began on August 29, 2022. A.W. testified at trial. A.W. testified she did not remember telling Father that something happened with Weston. A.W, said Weston never touched her, but that Weston made A.W. touch him when she was alone with him in Weston’s room. A.W. testified Weston made her "lick his bad part" in order for her to get candy. A.W. stated she touched Weston’s "bad spot" with her tongue, but she could not remember what position she was in when it happened. A.W. did not remember talking to the forensic interviewer and nurse about Weston touching her. When asked if she was telling the truth during the forensic interview, A.W. stated she "said wrong" and that she "probably just didn’t understand." A.W. clarified that Weston made A.W. put her tongue on his "bad spot" twice in the same day, but A.W. stated she could not do it the second time.
N.C. also testified at trial. N.C. testified about a time between 2010 and 2011 where she was at Boyfriend’s house. N.C. stated she was laying down and Weston came in at one point. Weston and N.C. had gotten under the covers and Weston began touching N.C.’s vaginal area, under her clothes. N.C. did not remember Boyfriend coming downstairs during the incident, and she did not remember Boyfriend asking her if anything happened. N.C. never told anyone about the incident until her mother asked her about it in 2020. N.C. stated she originally told her mother that Weston touched her over the clothes and not under the clothes because she "didn’t want [her mother] to be scared." N.C. testified she heard about an incident involving A.W. and Weston.
At the close of the State’s evidence, Weston made an oral motion for judgment of acquittal based upon insufficiency of the evidence, which the trial court denied. At the close of all of the evidence, Weston renewed his motion for acquittal, which the trial court denied. The jury found Weston guilty on Counts I, II, III, and V, and not guilty on Count IV. Weston waived jury sentencing prior to trial. At the sentencing hearing, Weston filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. The trial court sentenced Weston to fifteen years’ imprisonment for Counts I-III, and ten years’ imprisonment for Count V, with each count to run consecutively for a total sentence of 55 years. This appeal follows.
[2–4] In Point I, Weston claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove each element of the four sodomy counts because the evidence produced at trial was "legally and substantially inconsistent" to support each charged count, violating Weston’s rights to due process and a fair trial. "The review of a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is the same as reviewing a claim that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the charged offense." State v. Dodd, 637 S.W.3d 659, 666 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). On review, we are limited to a determination of "whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Zetina-Torres, 482 S.W.3d 801, 806 (Mo. banc 2016) (internal citation omitted). This Court will not re-weigh the evidence presented at trial;...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting