State of Missouri v. Antonio Rycraw

In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Eastern District

DIVISION FOUR
STA'I`E OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED103044
)
Respondent, ) Appeal f`rom the Circuit Court
) of the City of St. Louis
vs. )
' ) Honorable Philip D. Heagney
ANTONIO RYCRAW, )
)
Appellant. ) FILED: September 27, 2016

Introduction

Appeilant Antonio Rycraw (“Rycraw”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court
entered after a jury trial. The jury convicted Rycraw on four counts of statutory sodomy and tWo
counts of sexual misconduct against Victim, Who Was between five and eight years old When the
incidents occurred. The jury acquitted Rycraw on one count of furnishing pornography to
Victim. Rycraw argues that the trial court erred in four respects: (l) in refusing to replace a juror
Who “dozed off" during evidence; (2) in precluding evidence that Victim had sexual intercourse
with a third party; (3) in precluding evidence that Victim had viewed pornography With her
brother; and (4) in submitting multiple-act verdict directors for Counts I-V, Which deprived
Rycraw of hisl constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict.

We find no trial-court error on Rycravv’s first three points. The record shows that the

trial court properly questioned the juror and reasonably concluded that the juror could fulfill her

duties. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting evidence that Victim had
intercourse with a third party or viewed pornography because the admission of such evidence
was prohibited by the rape shield statute and was not prejudicial. With respect to Ryeraw’s
fourth point, the trial court properly submitted the jury instructions f`or Counts I, III, and V, but
erred in submitting the jury instructions f`or Counts II and IV because the verdict directors f`or
those counts failed to ensure a unanimous jury verdict. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s
judgment with respect to Counts II and IV, but affirm in all other respects.

Factual and Procedural Historv

I. Factual OVerview

Rycraw lived in a one-story home with three bedrooms, one bathroom, and a basementl
In 2009, five-year-old Victim moved into the home with her mother, father, and siblings. Victim
shared one bedroom with her two sisters, while Rycraw had his own bedroom. Rycraw’s sister
(who also lived in the home) had a relationship with Victim’s mother, and Victit‘n referred to
Rycraw as “Uncle Tony.”

Several years later, then eight-year-old Victim attended a school program that taught
students about inappropriate touching After the program, Victim reported that Rycraw had
touched her inappropriater and the schooi nurse called the child-abuse hotline.

Subsequently, a forensic interviewer from the Child Advocacy Centcr conducted a
videotaped interview with Victim (“CAC interview”). Victim described several inappropriate
incidents involving Rycraw. Victim did not describe these incidents chronologicaliy in the
video, but the forensic interviewer pressed Victim to identify each act as the “f'lrst time” in
Rycraw’s bedroom, the “second time” in Rycraw’S bedroom, or in the bathroom.

With regard to the first incident, Victim reported that she was sitting fully clothed on the

bed in Rycraw’s bedroom watching a movie. Rycraw and other children were in the bedroom,

2

but at some point the other children left. Victim recalled that Rycraw, who was laying on the

bed, unzipped his pants and exposed his “pr‘ivate part.”l

Rycraw reached into Victim’s pants and
“pushed” on the inside of her vagina; Rycraw’s other hand grabbed his exposed genitals. Victim
ran away and told her parents about the incident, but her parents simply told her to stay away
from Rycraw. According to Victim, Rycraw threatened to shoot her in the head if she told
anyone. Victim tried to stay out of Rycraw’s bedroom after that incident

Victim also reported a second incident that occurred in Rycraw’s bedroom. This time,
Victim told the forensic interviewer that she was sitting on the couch in another room in the
house when Rycraw “trici