State’s highest court affirms decision in child sexual assault case

Summary

• Missouri Supreme Court affirmed James Guthrie‘s convictions for statutory rape, sodomy and child molestation.
• Appeal centered on whether prosecutors proved the second victim was under age 14 at the time of the offense.
• Majority opinion held the victim’s testimony supported the jury’s finding beyond reasonable doubt.
• Dissent argued the state failed to sufficiently establish the timeline alleged in the charging documents.

In an appeal from Mississippi County, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision that the state fulfilled its burden of proof against a man convicted of raping and molesting two children.

James Guthrie was tried and found guilty of two counts of first-degree statutory rape and one count of fourth-degree child molestation against one victim and one count of first-degree statutory rape and one count of first-degree sodomy against a second victim, according to the court.

Guthrie’s appeal focused on the second victim in the case, claiming the state showed insufficient evidence to prove the child’s age at trial, according to the court. The debate was over whether the victim was 13 or 14 when Guthrie raped her and is central to the first-degree statutory rape alleging Guthrie: “knowingly had sexual intercourse with [victim 2], a child less than fourteen years old.”

In its statement of facts, the court wrote that conflicting evidence was presented at trial that cast confusion on whether the rape occurred when the child was 13 or if it occurred after her 14^th birthday.

The victim testified that she was born in late May 2003 and Guthrie raped her in 2017. She did not remember the month in 2017 in which it happened. The jury found Guthrie guilty on all counts of his crimes against both girls.

“In his sole point on appeal, Guthrie claims the state failed to present sufficient evidence, absent speculation, that victim 2 was less than the age of 14 when the statutory rape offense occurred,” Judge Zel M. Fischer wrote in the court’s opinion. “Guthrie argues the record does not contain a logical basis to conclude the offense occurred before victim 2 turned 14 years old. Specifically, Guthrie contends inferring the offense occurred in the spring before victim 2’s 14th birthday from her testimony the weather was a ‘cool, breezy-type’ rests on improper speculation.”

The victim testified she was a pre-teen when she was raped and the court analyzed the definition of pre-teen in its decision. Citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the term pre-teen means “prior to thirteen” and the jury would have been justified in assuming the victim was under the age of 14 when she was raped, based on her testimony at trial.

The lower court’s decision was affirmed.

Chief Justice W. Brent Powell and judges Paul C. Wilson, Kelly C. Broniec, Ginger K. Gooch and Mary R. Russell concurred.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Judge Robin Ransom said she would remand for a new trial on the lesser offense of second-degree statutory rape.

“Here, based on the information alleged and the verdict-directing instruction for count IV the jury was required to find that, between January 1, 2017,  and May 1, 2017, Guthrie had sexual intercourse with victim 2, a person under the age of 14 years,” Ransom wrote. “In the light most favorable to the judgment, the only evidence that could possibly show when the offense occurred is victim 2’s testimony that she was a ‘preteen.’”

Given the principal opinion’s definition of pre-teen, this means the offense could have occurred when the girl was any age under 13, Ransom said. She added: “This is a broad time frame that substantially differs from the state’s allegation in the information that the conduct occurred during a four-month period when victim 2 was 13.”

“The state easily could have limited its information to state the offense occurred on or before January 1, 2017, in which case it would not have been confined to that precise date and could have proved the offense to have been committed on any day before January 1, 2017, so long as it was within the period of limitation. Alternatively, the state could have significantly broadened the date range alleged in the information to include the relevant preteen years,” Ransom said. “Finally, the state could have amended the information to conform with the evidence presented at trial.”

The state did none of these things and although it “properly granted tremendous leeway in charging and proving when child abuse offenses occur,” it did not meet the burden of proof for this claim, Ransom argued.

“I do not believe the state satisfied its burden in this case. Reversal is required under (State v. Miller).”

The case is: State of Missouri v. James Guthrie, Case no. SC101373.