Date: 05-04-2016

Case Style: Edward L. Hoeber vs. State of Missouri

Case Number: SC95079

Judge: Patricia Breckenridge

Court: SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

Plaintiff's Attorney: Evan J. Buccheim

Defendant's Attorney: Laura G. Martin

Description: Edward L. Hoeber was convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, section 566.062.1 Mr. Hoeber subsequently filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post
conviction relief alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
verdict directors that violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict and for
failing to hire an expert to testify at the sentencing hearing. The motion court concluded
that trial counsel’s failure to object to the verdict directors did not prejudice Mr. Hoeber
because no risk existed that the jurors were misled about which incident of abuse applied
to each particular count of statutory sodomy. The motion court further concluded that
trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to hire an expert to testify at Mr. Hoeber’s
sentencing hearing. The motion court overruled Mr. Hoeber’s motion for post-conviction
relief.
The two verdict directors submitted in Mr. Hoeber’s case both failed to identify a
specific act or incident of abuse despite testimony at trial regarding multiple incidents of
Mr. Hoeber inappropriately touching S.M., the victim. Given the evidence of multiple
acts or incidents of abuse introduced at trial and the state’s emphasis on such evidence in
its closing argument, the non-specific verdict directors created a risk that the jurors did
not unanimously agree as to the acts for which they were finding Mr. Hoeber guilty. A
reasonable probability exists, therefore, that both verdict directors in this case misled or
misdirected the jury in such a way that affected the verdicts. Accordingly, trial counsel’s
failure to object to the erroneous verdict directors prejudiced Mr. Hoeber.
Moreover, a reasonably competent attorney would have objected to, or requested
the modification of, the two insufficiently specific verdict directors to protect
Mr. Hoeber’s right to a unanimous jury verdict. At the time of Mr. Hoeber’s trial, the
MAI notes on use addressed the significance of modifying verdict directors in multiple
acts cases, and it was well-established Missouri law that the verdict must be definite and
certain as to the crime of which the accused is found guilty. The fact that State v. Celis
Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011), had yet to be decided at the time of
Mr. Hoeber’s trial does not excuse trial counsel’s failure to object to the two erroneous
verdict directors. Consequently, because no reasonable trial strategy existed for trial
counsel’s failure to object to the non-specific verdict directors, trial counsel’s
performance fell outside the wide range of professional, competent assistance.
3
Accordingly, Mr. Hoeber established that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to object to two insufficiently specific verdict directors, and the motion court
clearly erred in overruling Mr. Hoeber’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.
This Court reverses the motion court’s judgment and remands this case.
Factual and Procedural Background
S.M. was born in 2003. In 2004, S.M.’s mother began dating Mr. Hoeber, who
moved in with the family soon thereafter. Mr. Hoeber and S.M’s mother ended their
romantic relationship in 2005. Nevertheless, Mr. Hoeber continued to live with the
family intermittently through 2007.
In July 2007, S.M., her mother, and Mr. Hoeber were living in a one-bedroom
apartment in St. Joseph. S.M.’s mother had increasing health problems that caused her to
spend the majority of the day sitting in a recliner in the living room. Because of her
health problems, she was unable to care for S.M. As a result, Mr. Hoeber prepared
S.M.’s meals, bathed and dressed S.M., and helped S.M. use the bathroom. While
Mr. Hoeber was taking care of S.M., she was diagnosed with a vaginal infection.
Because S.M.’s mother was unable to apply the medication, Mr. Hoeber applied it to
S.M.’s genitals using his finger.
By September 2007, Mr. Hoeber was no longer living at the apartment, and S.M.
was placed in foster care. While in foster care, S.M. told her foster mother that
Mr. Hoeber had touched her. After the disclosure, S.M. began seeing a child therapist.
S.M. told the therapist that Mr. Hoeber had touched her “private area.”
4
By January 2008, S.M. had returned to living with her mother. One night, S.M.
began talking in her sleep saying “Stop it! Stop it!” When S.M.’s mother woke her, S.M.
said “Eddie hurt me.” When questioned further, S.M. said that Mr. Hoeber had touched
her “pee-pee” and demonstrated to her mother how he had touched her genitals. S.M.’s
mother called the police. Mr. Hoeber was charged with two counts of first degree statutory sodomy.2 When
questioned, Mr. Hoeber originally denied touching S.M. inappropriately and requested
that a lie detector test be administered. Detective Scott Coates of the Buchanan County
sheriff’s office prepared Mr. Hoeber for the lie detector test. While doing so, Detective
Coates asked Mr. Hoeber if there was anything Mr. Hoeber was not telling him and that,
if there were, Mr. Hoeber should tell him before the test. Mr. Hoeber eventually admitted
to touching S.M. in the bathroom on two separate occasions. Detective Coates
transcribed Mr. Hoeber’s admission in a statement that Mr. Hoeber then signed.
In 2009, the case proceeded to trial. S.M. testified that Mr. Hoeber touched her
private area and her butt with his hand more than one time. When asked what room she
was in when the touching occurred, S.M. stated it was in the kitchen. S.M. went on to
testify that no touching occurred in the bedroom, the bathroom, or the living room.
S.M.’s mother also testified at trial. She explained that S.M. had told her that the
touching occurred more than one time. She further testified that S.M. told her the
touching occurred in the kitchen and the bedroom.
2 Mr. Hoeber was also charged with two counts of first degree child molestation, section 566.067. These charges, however, were dismissed at trial.
5
The state offered additional testimony from S.M.’s therapist. The therapist
testified that she first saw S.M. in September 2007. During that visit, S.M. told the
therapist that Mr. Hoeber had touched her, then immediately stated “No, he doesn’t.” At
a later visit, S.M. told the therapist that she “needed to tell [the therapist] a secret.” S.M.
then disclosed that Mr. Hoeber had touched her private area with his hand while she was
in the bedroom. In subsequent visits, S.M. disclosed that Mr. Hoeber had touched her
private area with his hand on more than one occasion. In describing the touchings, S.M.
told the therapist they had occurred in the bedroom, the kitchen, the bathroom, and the
living room.
Detective Coates then read Mr. Hoeber’s statement into evidence. The statement
provided:
I, Edward Hoeber, state that I dated [S.M.’s mother] for about one year. I lived with [S.M.’s mother] in 2004, this is December, to September 2005. Then I would say I have lived with [S.M.’s mother] off and on since December of 2004. I came to jail in August of 2007.3 During the time I lived with [S.M’s mother], she would have me take care of her daughter, [S.M.]. I would give her a bath and sometimes wipe after she got done in the bathroom. [S.M.] was 4. She will be 5 next month. About a month before I got arrested, we were living at 619 North 9th. Around that time, there were two times I touched [S.M.] inappropriately. There were two times where [S.M.] was in the bathroom and had gotten off the toilet with her pants down. Before she would pull her pants up, I would rub her clitoris with my fingers. She would kind of laugh. I would rub her for about two minutes or so. [S.M.’s mother] would be sitting in the front room. I never told her anything about this. As far as I know, [S.M.’s mother] never knew. I only did it the two times. I am sorry for what I did. I really need help.
3 Mr. Hoeber’s arrest and jail time in August 2007 were unrelated to the present case.
6
Testifying on his own behalf, Mr. Hoeber denied touching S.M. inappropriately and
explained that his confession was coerced by Detective Coates.
At the close of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on two counts of first
degree statutory sodomy. Mr. Hoeber’s trial counsel did not object to either verdict
director submitted to the jury. The jury found Mr. Hoeber guilty on both counts, and the
trial court sentenced Mr. Hoeber, as a prior offender, to 40 years on each count to run
consecutively. Trial counsel presented no witnesses on Mr. Hoeber’s behalf at the
sentencing hearing. Mr. Hoeber’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v.
Hoeber, 341 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. App. 2011).
On March 24, 2010, Mr. Hoeber filed his pro se motion for post-conviction relief
pursuant to Rule 29.15. In his amended Rule 29.15 motion, Mr. Hoeber claimed that his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the verdict directors, which he alleged
violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict. Mr. Hoeber further claimed
that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the sentencing hearing by failing
to hire an expert to present evidence regarding the mitigating effect of Mr. Hoeber’s
mental conditions.
On May 3, 2013, the motion court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Trial counsel
testified that he did not consider objecting on the basis that the verdict directors failed to
specify a particular incident or place in which the touchings occurred. He further
testified that he had no trial strategy for failing to object to the verdict directors.
Dr. William Geis also testified at the evidentiary hearing regarding Mr. Hoeber’s mental
condition and whether Mr. Hoeber was likely to be a repeat offender.
7
On September 25, 2013, the motion court entered its findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and judgment in which it overruled Mr. Hoeber’s motion for post-conviction
relief. In doing so, the motion court concluded that Mr. Hoeber did not establish that he
was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to object to the verdict directors because
there was no risk that the jurors would be misled about which incidents of abuse applied
to a particular count. The motion court also concluded that Mr. Hoeber failed to establish
that the outcome of the sentencing would have been different had Mr. Hoeber’s trial
counsel hired Dr. Geis to testify.
Mr. Hoeber appealed. After a decision by the court of appeals, this Court granted
transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.
Standard of Review
This Court’s review of a motion court’s overruling of a motion for post-conviction
relief is limited to a determination of whether the motion court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). A motion court’s findings and
conclusions are “clearly erroneous only if this Court is left with a definite and firm
impression that a mistake has been made.” Mallow v. State, 439 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Mo.
banc 2014).
The Verdict Directors Failed to Ensure Unanimous Jury Verdicts
In his first point, Mr. Hoeber claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
object to the verdict directors submitted on the two counts of statutory sodomy in the first
degree. Mr. Hoeber asserts that the verdict directors in this case violated his
constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict in that the verdict directors failed to
8
specify a particular incident or act of hand-to-genital contact despite evidence of multiple
acts of hand-to-genital contact being introduced at trial.
The Missouri Constitution provides “[t]hat the right of trial by jury as heretofore
enjoyed shall remain inviolate[.]” Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 22(a). This Court has held that
article I, section 22(a) protects a defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict. State v.
Hadley, 815 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Mo. banc 1991). “For a jury verdict to be unanimous, the
jurors must be in substantial agreement as to the defendant’s acts, as a preliminary step to
determining guilt.” Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d at 155 (internal quotation omitted).
In Celis-Garcia, this Court addressed the right to a unanimous verdict in the context of a multiple acts case.4 Id. at 155-58. The defendant in Celis-Garcia was
charged with two counts of statutory sodomy. Id. at 152. At trial, the two victims
testified about multiple incidents of abuse occurring in different locations. Id. at 153.
Two verdict directors – one for each victim – instructed the jury that if it believed the
defendant had committed the act constituting statutory sodomy between the charged
dates, it must find the defendant guilty of statutory sodomy. Id. at 154-55. Besides the
charged dates, the verdict directors did not specify a particular location or otherwise
identify the incident of statutory sodomy the defendant had allegedly committed. Id. at
154.
In vacating the defendant’s convictions, this Court explained:
4 “A multiple acts case arises when there is evidence of multiple, distinct criminal acts, each of which could serve as the basis for a criminal charge, but the defendant is charged with those acts in a single count.” Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d at 155-56.
9
Despite evidence of multiple, separate incidents of statutory sodomy, the verdict directors failed to differentiate between the various acts in a way that ensured the jury unanimously convicted [the defendant] of the same act or acts. . . . This broad language allowed each individual juror to determine which incident he or she would consider in finding [the defendant] guilty of statutory sodomy. Under the instructions, the jurors could convict [the defendant] if they found that she engaged or assisted in hand-to-genital contact with the children during an incident in her bedroom, or on the enclosed porch, or in the shed, or in the bathroom.
Id. at 156 (emphasis in original). This Court then found that, because there was evidence
of multiple, separate incidents of statutory sodomy committed against both victims and
any of them would have supported the charged offenses, it was “impossible to determine
whether the jury unanimously agreed on any one of these separate incidents.” Id. at 158.
Accordingly, this Court concluded that “the verdict directors violated [the defendant’s]
constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict[.]” Id. This Court then determined that
the trial court plainly erred in failing to properly instruct the jury because the “verdict
directors misdirected the jury in a way the affected that verdict, thereby resulting in
manifest injustice.” Id. at 159.
Similar to the situation in Celis-Garcia, evidence of multiple acts of hand-to
genital contact, each of which would constitute the commission of the offense of statutory
sodomy, was presented at Mr. Hoeber’s trial. S.M. testified that Mr. Hoeber touched her
private area and butt with his hand more than one time in the kitchen. She further
testified that Mr. Hoeber did not touch her inappropriately in the bedroom, bathroom, or
living room. S.M.’s mother, however, testified that S.M. told her the touching occurred
in the bedroom and the kitchen more than one time. The therapist offered additional
testimony regarding the incidents of hand-to-genital contact S.M. disclosed during their
10
therapy sessions. The therapist testified that S.M. had reported being touched in the
bedroom, kitchen, living room, and bathroom on more than one occasion. Mr. Hoeber’s
statement in which he admitted to touching S.M.’s genitals twice in the bathroom was
also read into evidence. Mr. Hoeber then testified that he had not touched S.M. and that
his statement was coerced.
Despite the conflicting evidence presented at trial of multiple acts of hand-to
genital contact, neither verdict director specified a particular room or incident. Instead,
two counts of statutory sodomy were submitted to the jury – Instruction No. 8 and
Instruction No. 10. Instruction No. 8 reads:
As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence
First, that between July 1, 2007 and August 29, 2007, in the County of Buchanan, State of Missouri, [Mr. Hoeber] knowingly touched the genitals of S.M. with his hands,
and
Second, that such conduct constituted deviate sexual intercourse,
and
Third, that at the time S.M. was a child less than twelve years old, then you will find [Mr. Hoeber] guilty under Count I of statutory sodomy in the first degree.
. . . .
Instruction No. 10 contained the identical language except for references to Count II.
Because the verdict directors failed to identify any specific incident or room in
which the conduct occurred, the verdict directors allowed each individual juror to
determine which incident he or she would consider in finding Mr. Hoeber guilty on each
11
count of statutory sodomy. Under each verdict director, each juror could have found
Mr. Hoeber guilty of engaging in hand-to-genital contact with S.M. during an incident in
the kitchen or in the bathroom or in the living room or in the bedroom. The verdict
directors, therefore, created a real risk that the jurors did not unanimously agree on the
specific acts of statutory sodomy for which they found Mr. Hoeber guilty. Accordingly,
the verdict directors failed to ensure a unanimous jury verdict.
Trial Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Object to the Verdict Directors
This Court must now determine whether trial counsel’s failure to object to the
erroneous verdict directors constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish
ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must prove “by a preponderance of the
evidence that (1) trial counsel failed to exercise the level of skill and diligence that
reasonably competent counsel would exercise in a similar situation and (2) the movant
was prejudiced by that failure.” Dorsey v. State, 448 S.W.3d 276, 286-87 (Mo. banc
2014) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). If a movant fails to
satisfy either prong of the Strickland test, he or she is not entitled to post-conviction
relief. State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 729, 746 (Mo. banc 1997).
To satisfy the performance prong, movants “must overcome the strong
presumption that counsel’s conduct was reasonable and effective.” Johnson v. State, 406
S.W.3d 892, 899 (Mo. banc 2013). This presumption is overcome when a movant
identifies “specific acts or omissions of counsel that, in light of all the circumstances, fell
outside the wide range of professional competent assistance.” Id. (internal quotation
omitted).
12
To establish Strickland prejudice, “a movant must show a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome would have been different.” Dorsey, 448
S.W.3d at 287. “A reasonable probability exists when there is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
The motion court concluded that trial counsel’s failure to object to the verdict
directors did not prejudice Mr. Hoeber. In doing so, the motion court reasoned that, in
Celis-Garcia, the risk that the verdict directors misdirected the jury occurred because the
state emphasized multiple uncharged bad acts. The motion court found that there was no
risk that the jurors were misled about which incident of abuse applied to a particular count in Mr. Hoeber’s case because S.M. testified about two particular incidents5 and any
uncharged acts committed by Mr. Hoeber were not the emphasis or focus of the state’s
case.
As previously explained, however, the state presented conflicting evidence at trial
that S.M. had disclosed incidents of hand-to-genital contact occurring in the kitchen, the
bedroom, the living room, and the bathroom. In its closing argument, the state addressed
S.M’s conflicting statements:
When you’re talking to a child, when you ask them a question, they’re going to answer whatever memory that jogs. And if something happens to them multiple times, one time they might remember the kitchen. The next time they might remember the bedroom. The next time they might remember the living room. 5 In its findings and conclusions, the motion court incorrectly states that S.M. “testified as to two particular incidents: one in the bedroom and one in the kitchen.” S.M. testified at trial that Mr. Hoeber had touched her more than one time in the kitchen. When questioned about other rooms in which the abuse occurred, S.M. testified that no abuse occurred in the bathroom, the living room, or the bedroom.
13
They’re going to spit out whatever what you said to them makes them think about. And that’s what’s happened to this child. And this happened more than one time. Even the defendant said it happened twice. [S.M.] said it happened more than one time and a lot.
As reflected by this closing argument, the state’s case was not limited to or focused on
any two particular incidents of abuse. Instead, the state argued that multiple acts of abuse
had occurred in justifying S.M.’s conflicting statements. In fact, the state concluded its
closing argument by stating: “[Mr. Hoeber] touched [S.M.] on at least two occasions in
2007 between July 1st and the end of August . . . .” (Emphasis added). Given the
evidence of multiple acts of abuse introduced at trial and the state’s emphasis on such
evidence in its closing argument, the non-specific verdict directors created a real risk that
the jurors did not unanimously agree as to the acts for which they were finding
Mr. Hoeber guilty. Therefore, a reasonable probability exists in this case that the verdict
directors misled or misdirected the jury in such a way that undermines this Court’s
confidence in the verdicts.
The state asserts that, even though multiple acts of statutory sodomy were
introduced into evidence, no prejudice resulted from trial counsel’s failure to object to the
non-specific verdict directors because Mr. Hoeber employed a “unitary defense” at trial.
In support of its argument, the state relies on State v. LeSieur, 361 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. App.
2012), for the proposition that the type of defense a defendant employs determines
whether a risk exists that the jurors did not unanimously agree on the act they found the
defendant guilty of committing.
14
In LeSieur, the defendant was convicted of two counts of second-degree statutory
rape. Id. at 460. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court violated his
constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict because the verdict directors failed to
require the jury to agree on the specific act he committed to find him guilty on each rape
count. Id. The court of appeals found that the trial court erred in failing to properly
instruct the jury because the victim testified to multiple acts of statutory rape but the
verdict directors did not include any distinguishing characteristics. Id. at 463.
Nevertheless, the court concluded that the erroneous verdict directors did not result in
plain error. Id. at 465. The court reasoned:
Celis-Garcia makes clear that, to establish manifest injustice based on an insufficiently specific verdict director in a multiple acts case, the defendant must have mounted an incident-specific defense, which would have given the jury a basis to distinguish among the various incidents mentioned in the evidence. Celis-Garcia suggests that, where the defendant instead mounts a unitary defense to all alleged actions, attacking the victim’s credibility generally, manifest injustice does not exist.
Id. (internal quotation omitted). Since LeSieur, multiple cases have, likewise, held that
the failure to mount an incident-specific defense precludes a finding that non-specific
verdict directors resulted in manifest injustice. See State v. King, 453 S.W.3d 363, 376
77 (Mo. App. 2015); State v. Payne, 414 S.W.3d 52, 56-57 (Mo. App. 2013); State v.
Rose, 421 S.W.3d 522, 529 (Mo. App. 2013).
At no point in Celis-Garcia, however, did this Court conclude that a defendant
asserting a general defense could never be prejudiced by non-specific verdict directors.
Instead, this Court found that the fact that the defendant in Celis-Garcia “relied on
evidentiary inconsistencies and factual improbabilities respecting each allegation of
15
hand-to-genital contact makes it more likely that individual jurors convicted her on the
basis of different acts.” Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d at 159 (emphasis added). In other
words, while the act-specific defense in Celis-Garcia helped this Court find that the
insufficiently specific verdict directors were prejudicial to the defendant, the Court was
not required to find prejudice based on her defense. This Court’s analysis and holding in
Celis-Garcia was not that a defendant like Mr. Hoeber could not suffer prejudice from
insufficiently specific verdict directors just because he employed a general or unitary
defense. To the extent LeSieur and its progeny suggest otherwise, they should no longer
be followed.
Rather, as previously explained, to establish prejudice, “a movant must show a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome would have been
different.” Dorsey, 448 S.W.3d at 287. Moreover, in reviewing a post-conviction relief
case, “the appropriate standard of prejudice should be somewhat lower” than that needed
to establish plain error. Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 427-28 (Mo. banc 2002) (internal
quotation omitted). The ultimate determination in a post-conviction relief case is
“whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance
of counsel, such that this Court’s confidence in the fairness of the proceeding is
undermined.” Id. at 428.
Trial counsel’s failure to object to the insufficiently specific verdict directors
submitted to the jury undermines this Court’s confidence in the reliability of the verdicts.
At trial, the jury heard conflicting statements about multiple incidents of hand-to-genital
contact. The state’s case was not focused on or limited to any specific acts or incidents of
16
sexual abuse. Rather, the state argued that Mr. Hoeber had abused S.M. multiple times
and at least on two occasions. Because there was evidence of multiple, separate incidents
of statutory sodomy, any of which would have supported the charged offenses, and
neither verdict director specified a particular act or incident, there was no requirement
that jurors agree on the same act to find Mr. Hoeber guilty on either count of statutory
sodomy. The verdict directors, therefore, created a real risk that the jury verdicts were
not unanimous. Despite this substantial threat to the unanimity of the jury verdicts,
Mr. Hoeber’s trial counsel failed to object to the insufficiently specific verdict directors.
Accordingly, trial counsel’s failure to object to the erroneous verdict directors prejudiced
Mr. Hoeber.
Because the motion court concluded that Mr. Hoeber was not prejudiced by trial
counsel’s failure to object, it did not determine whether trial counsel’s performance fell
outside the range of professional, competent assistance. Mr. Hoeber argues that trial
counsel’s failure to object was unreasonable in that, at the time of trial, the notes on use
to MAI-CR3d 304.02 warned of the need to modify verdict directors to avoid the risk of a
non-unanimous jury verdict in a multiple acts case. The notes on use provided that the
“place of the offense may become of ‘decisive importance’ . . . where the defendant may
have committed several separate offenses against the same victim at the same general
location within a short space of time.” MAI-CR3d 304.02, Notes on Use 6. “In such a
situation, upon request of the defendant or on the Court’s own motion, the place should
be more definitely identified, such as ‘the front bedroom on the second floor,’ ‘the
southeast corner of the basement,’ etc.” Id.
17
In Celis-Garcia, this Court determined that the modification suggested by the
notes on use was “insufficient to protect a defendant’s constitutional right to a unanimous
jury verdict in a multiple acts case.” 344 S.W.3d at 158. In doing so, this Court found
that the modification should have been mandatory in multiple acts cases and that the
separate offenses could be distinguished on the basis of time or other characteristics
besides the place in which the offense occurred. Id. Nevertheless, at the time of
Mr. Hoeber’s trial, the notes on use contained an express warning that, in cases in which
the defendant has committed multiple separate acts, distinguishing between the offenses
is of crucial importance and that the verdict directors should be modified accordingly.
Given this express warning, a reasonably competent attorney would have objected to, or
requested the modification of, the verdict directors to protect a defendant’s right to a
unanimous jury verdict in a multiple acts case.
The state acknowledges that the notes on use at the time of trial addressed
modification of verdict directors in multiple acts cases. Nevertheless, it asserts that the
prevailing professional norms at the time of Mr. Hoeber’s trial did not require trial
counsel to object because Celis-Garcia had not yet been decided. The state contends that
trial counsel should not be found incompetent for failing to predict the change in the law
that resulted from this Court’s opinion in Celis-Garcia.
In evaluating trial counsel’s performance, “counsel’s conduct is measured by what
the law is at the time of trial.” Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170, 190 (Mo. banc 2009). It
follows that trial counsel typically will “not be held ineffective for failing to anticipate a
18
change in the law.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). This Court’s opinion in Celis
Garcia, however, did not constitute a substantive change in the law.
As explained in Barmettler v. State, 399 S.W.3d 523, 529 (Mo. App. 2013),
“Celis-Garcia did not establish the right of criminal defendants to a unanimous jury
verdict, and was not the first judicial decision to recognize that imprecisely drafted
verdict directors could violate this constitutional right.” At the time of Mr. Hoeber’s
trial, it was well-established law in the Missouri that “the verdict must be definite and certain as to the crime of which the accused is found guilty.”6 State v. Washington, 146
S.W. 1164, 1166 (Mo. 1912); see also State v. Jackson, 146 S.W. 1166, 1169 (Mo.
1912); State v. Pruitt, 100 S.W. 431, 432 (Mo. 1907); State v. Mitchell, 704 S.W.2d 280,
287 (Mo. App. 1986); State v. Pope, 733 S.W.2d 811, 813 (Mo. App. 1987). This
Court’s opinion in Celis-Garcia merely reiterated this principle in the context of a
statutory sodomy case. Celis-Garcia, therefore, did not constitute a substantive change in
the law and cannot excuse trial counsel’s failure to object to the verdict directors.
The state further claims that trial counsel’s performance cannot be deemed
incompetent because trial counsel’s failure to object could be viewed as reasonable trial 6 In its brief, the state relies on several cases for the proposition that, at the time of Mr. Hoeber’s trial, the prevailing norms did not require him to object to the verdict directors. The cases relied on by the state, however, did not approvingly uphold the use of non-specific verdict directors; rather, the courts found that, under the circumstances of each case, the insufficiently specific verdict directors did not prejudice the defendant. See State v. Smith, 32 S.W.3d 134, 136 (Mo. App. 2000); State v. Staples, 908 S.W.2d 189, 190-91 (Mo. App. 1995); State v. Burch, 740 S.W.2d 293, 295-96 (Mo. App. 1987) abrogation recognized by Mallow, 439 S.W.3d at 771 n.5. Simply because these courts found no prejudice resulted from the non-specific verdict directors does not mean that insufficiently specific verdict directors were an acceptable practice at the time of Mr. Hoeber’s trial.
19
strategy under the circumstances of Mr. Hoeber’s case. In particular, the state relies on
the fact that Mr. Hoeber’s defense at trial was that he did not commit any acts of statutory
sodomy; thus, trial counsel would have had no reason to focus the jury’s attention on the
multiple acts evidenced at trial by including specific references to those acts in alternative
verdict directors. The state asserts that, had trial counsel objected, it would have resulted
in eight possible alternative verdict directors, making it more likely that Mr. Hoeber would have been convicted.7
There is “a presumption that counsel’s alleged omissions were sound trial
strategy.” Storey v. State, 175 S.W.3d 116, 125 (Mo. banc 2005) (internal quotation
omitted). At the evidentiary hearing, however, trial counsel testified that he did not fail to object to the verdict directors on the basis of trial strategy.8 Moreover, the state’s trial
strategy argument is premised on the assumption that modifying the verdict directors
would have made it more likely that Mr. Hoeber was convicted. This argument is
contrary to the purpose of requiring juror unanimity in multiple acts cases.
Again, the lack of specificity in the verdict directors made it possible for each
individual juror to determine which incident he or she would consider in finding
Mr. Hoeber guilty on each count of statutory sodomy. Therefore, one juror could have
found Mr. Hoeber guilty of an act that occurred in the kitchen, while another juror could
7 Although the state argues that any objection by trial counsel would have resulted in multiple alternative verdict directors, the state also could have elected to submit one specific incident or act of statutory sodomy for each count. 8 The motion court made no credibility findings regarding trial counsel’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing that he had no trial strategy in failing to object to the verdict directors.
20
have found him guilty of an act that occurred in the bathroom. The verdict directors
allowed the jury to convict Mr. Hoeber of two counts of statutory sodomy without
requiring all 12 jurors to agree on the specific conduct that constituted each offense.
Because the jurors did not have to agree on which of S.M.’s conflicting disclosures of
abuse constituted each offense, the insufficiently specific verdict directors made it easier
for the jury to convict Mr. Hoeber of two counts of statutory sodomy. It follows that no
reasonable trial strategy existed for failing to object to the non-specific verdict directors.
In the absence of reasonable trial strategy, trial counsel’s failure to object to the
insufficiently specific verdict directors did not conform to the degree of skill, care, and
diligence of a reasonably competent attorney. Mr. Hoeber, therefore, has shown that,
under the circumstances of this case, trial counsel’s performance fell outside the wide
range of professional, competent assistance.
Accordingly, Mr. Hoeber has established that, by failing to object to the
insufficiently specific verdict directors, trial counsel’s performance was deficient and
Mr. Hoeber was thereby prejudiced. Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when
he failed to object to the erroneous verdict directors, and the motion court clearly erred in
overruling Mr. Hoeber’s motion for post-conviction relief.

Outcome: Mr. Hoeber was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel
failed to object to the use of non-specific verdict directors in a multiple acts case. Consequently, the motion court clearly erred in overruling Mr. Hoeber’s motion for postconviction relief. The motion court’s judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.9

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: