In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED111691 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) Warren County vs. ) 19BB-CR00737-01 ) PEDRO TORRES JASSO, ) Honorable Linda R. Hamlett ) Appellant. ) Filed: April 23, 2024
Before John P. Torbitzky, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Michael S. Wright, J.
Introduction
Appellant Pedro Torres Jasso appeals his conviction for one count of second-degree rape
for a crime he committed against the seventeen-year-old Victim in September 2019 in Warren
County, Missouri. Jasso asserts the trial court plainly erred (1) in accepting his waiver of jury
sentencing; (2) in allowing Victim to testify that she was intimidated during her deposition; (3)
in failing to strike sua sponte expert J.W.’s testimony that she was unaware why someone would
lie about being raped in response to defense counsel’s question whether victims sometimes
falsely allege rape; and (4) in failing to intervene sua sponte when during its closing argument
the State emphasized the age difference between Jasso (forty-seven) and Victim (seventeen) at
the time of the rape. None of Jasso’s points were preserved for our review and we decline to
review any of them for plain error. Jasso’s conviction and seven-year sentence are affirmed. Background
Victim was a high school student who worked at a Mexican restaurant and occasionally
served Jasso, his wife, and family. On one of these occasions, Jasso gave Victim a piece of
paper with his telephone number. Jasso and Victim began communicating through text
messages. Jasso repeatedly requested to meet Victim privately and commented on her
attractiveness which made Victim uncomfortable.
Later, after Jasso encountered Victim at a local festival, he arranged to pick her up from
her high school the next day. Jasso instructed Victim to meet him away from school but on a
street near the school which she did. Jasso then drove Victim forty minutes to a home in the
Innsbrook development in Warren County. Victim’s understanding was that Jasso intended just
to show her the lake. Jasso had access to an unoccupied home there on which he had done work
and in fact attached a trailer to his truck after he picked up Victim so that his entry into the
development would not raise suspicion. He then instructed Victim to hide in the back of the
truck as he entered the security gate to the development. Once inside the home, Jasso raped
Victim in one of the bedrooms.
Back in Jasso’s truck, Victim’s Mother called her and told Victim she knew she was not
at school. Victim disconnected the call and then Jasso took Victim’s phone and forced her to
erase any messages between her and Jasso.
Jasso then dropped Victim off at her school whereupon D.P., a family friend, together
with a police officer, picked her up. At D.P.’s home, Victim revealed to Mother, D.P. and the
police officer that Jasso had raped her.
At the police station, Victim was upset and unable to identify where the crime occurred.
D.P. then took Victim to Cardinal Glennon Children’s hospital in St. Louis where Victim
2 detailed the rape to social worker S.M. Dr. K.F. then examined victim and found injuries to
Victim that were consistent with having been raped.
The Trial
On the morning of trial, Jasso waived jury sentencing and did not object when the court
dismissed the jury after the guilty verdict.
At one point during Jasso’s recross-examination of the Victim, done through a Spanish-
English interpreter, defense counsel sought to impeach Victim with her deposition testimony that
she knew what the word “romantic” meant after she testified at trial that she did not know. Then
in its redirect, the State, in an effort to rehabilitate Victim on this issue, adduced Victim’s
testimony that she had felt “a little” intimidated during her deposition.
Witness J.W. is an expert on the psychological impact rape has on victims. On cross-
examination, Jasso asked J.W. if there “is the possibility that whoever’s coming in and making
an accusation just isn’t telling the truth.” J.W. said she does not “know what they get out of
lying” and that she does not think “it happens as much as the general community thinks it does.”
Jasso did not move to strike the testimony.
During closing, the State repeatedly mentioned the thirty-year age difference between the
middle-aged Jasso and his teenaged Victim as reflecting the unequal balance of power between
the two and in connection with the manipulative and exploitative nature of his conduct which the
State referred to as “grooming.” Defense counsel did not object.
Standard of Review
Under certain circumstances, we may review unpreserved errors under our plain error
standard of review. State v. Townsend, 649 S.W.3d 72, 78 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022); See State v.
Speed, 551 S.W.3d 94, 97 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citing State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 718
3 (Mo. banc 2017)); Rule 30.20. Rule 30.20 states in relevant part that “[w]hether briefed or not,
plain 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.” See Speed,
551 S.W.3d at 98 (citing State v. Taylor, 466 S.W.3d 521, 533 (Mo. banc 2015)).
Plain error review is a two-step process. State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo.
banc 2009). First, we must determine whether the claim of error “facially establishes substantial
grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” Id.
(quoting State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995)); State v. McKay, 459 S.W.3d
450, 455-56 (Mo App. E.D. 2014); Rule 30.20. Not every prejudicial error, however, constitutes
plain error, as plain errors are “evident, obvious, and clear.” Id. If the claim of plain error
facially establishes grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice
resulted, we may elect to exercise our discretion and proceed to the second step to consider
whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left
uncorrected. Id.
Discussion
Point I
In Point I, Jasso alleges the trial court plainly erred in accepting his oral waiver of jury
sentencing because his waiver was not done in writing prior to voir dire as required by Section
557.036.4(1) RSMo. This record does not reflect an evident, obvious, or clear error by the trial
court and therefore we decline to review this point for plain error. 1
1 This Court follows State v. Weaver, 178 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) in this regard where the court held that an oral waiver of jury sentencing, while inconsistent with section 557.036.4(1)’s requirement that it be in writing, does not amount to manifest injustice “when [the defendant] requested court sentencing and is merely unhappy with the result.” Id. at 548. See State v. Hilbert, 663 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. banc 2023) (finding Hilbert’s waiver of his
4 Point II
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED111691 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) Warren County vs. ) 19BB-CR00737-01 ) PEDRO TORRES JASSO, ) Honorable Linda R. Hamlett ) Appellant. ) Filed: April 23, 2024
Before John P. Torbitzky, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Michael S. Wright, J.
Introduction
Appellant Pedro Torres Jasso appeals his conviction for one count of second-degree rape
for a crime he committed against the seventeen-year-old Victim in September 2019 in Warren
County, Missouri. Jasso asserts the trial court plainly erred (1) in accepting his waiver of jury
sentencing; (2) in allowing Victim to testify that she was intimidated during her deposition; (3)
in failing to strike sua sponte expert J.W.’s testimony that she was unaware why someone would
lie about being raped in response to defense counsel’s question whether victims sometimes
falsely allege rape; and (4) in failing to intervene sua sponte when during its closing argument
the State emphasized the age difference between Jasso (forty-seven) and Victim (seventeen) at
the time of the rape. None of Jasso’s points were preserved for our review and we decline to
review any of them for plain error. Jasso’s conviction and seven-year sentence are affirmed. Background
Victim was a high school student who worked at a Mexican restaurant and occasionally
served Jasso, his wife, and family. On one of these occasions, Jasso gave Victim a piece of
paper with his telephone number. Jasso and Victim began communicating through text
messages. Jasso repeatedly requested to meet Victim privately and commented on her
attractiveness which made Victim uncomfortable.
Later, after Jasso encountered Victim at a local festival, he arranged to pick her up from
her high school the next day. Jasso instructed Victim to meet him away from school but on a
street near the school which she did. Jasso then drove Victim forty minutes to a home in the
Innsbrook development in Warren County. Victim’s understanding was that Jasso intended just
to show her the lake. Jasso had access to an unoccupied home there on which he had done work
and in fact attached a trailer to his truck after he picked up Victim so that his entry into the
development would not raise suspicion. He then instructed Victim to hide in the back of the
truck as he entered the security gate to the development. Once inside the home, Jasso raped
Victim in one of the bedrooms.
Back in Jasso’s truck, Victim’s Mother called her and told Victim she knew she was not
at school. Victim disconnected the call and then Jasso took Victim’s phone and forced her to
erase any messages between her and Jasso.
Jasso then dropped Victim off at her school whereupon D.P., a family friend, together
with a police officer, picked her up. At D.P.’s home, Victim revealed to Mother, D.P. and the
police officer that Jasso had raped her.
At the police station, Victim was upset and unable to identify where the crime occurred.
D.P. then took Victim to Cardinal Glennon Children’s hospital in St. Louis where Victim
2 detailed the rape to social worker S.M. Dr. K.F. then examined victim and found injuries to
Victim that were consistent with having been raped.
The Trial
On the morning of trial, Jasso waived jury sentencing and did not object when the court
dismissed the jury after the guilty verdict.
At one point during Jasso’s recross-examination of the Victim, done through a Spanish-
English interpreter, defense counsel sought to impeach Victim with her deposition testimony that
she knew what the word “romantic” meant after she testified at trial that she did not know. Then
in its redirect, the State, in an effort to rehabilitate Victim on this issue, adduced Victim’s
testimony that she had felt “a little” intimidated during her deposition.
Witness J.W. is an expert on the psychological impact rape has on victims. On cross-
examination, Jasso asked J.W. if there “is the possibility that whoever’s coming in and making
an accusation just isn’t telling the truth.” J.W. said she does not “know what they get out of
lying” and that she does not think “it happens as much as the general community thinks it does.”
Jasso did not move to strike the testimony.
During closing, the State repeatedly mentioned the thirty-year age difference between the
middle-aged Jasso and his teenaged Victim as reflecting the unequal balance of power between
the two and in connection with the manipulative and exploitative nature of his conduct which the
State referred to as “grooming.” Defense counsel did not object.
Standard of Review
Under certain circumstances, we may review unpreserved errors under our plain error
standard of review. State v. Townsend, 649 S.W.3d 72, 78 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022); See State v.
Speed, 551 S.W.3d 94, 97 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citing State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 718
3 (Mo. banc 2017)); Rule 30.20. Rule 30.20 states in relevant part that “[w]hether briefed or not,
plain 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.” See Speed,
551 S.W.3d at 98 (citing State v. Taylor, 466 S.W.3d 521, 533 (Mo. banc 2015)).
Plain error review is a two-step process. State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo.
banc 2009). First, we must determine whether the claim of error “facially establishes substantial
grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” Id.
(quoting State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995)); State v. McKay, 459 S.W.3d
450, 455-56 (Mo App. E.D. 2014); Rule 30.20. Not every prejudicial error, however, constitutes
plain error, as plain errors are “evident, obvious, and clear.” Id. If the claim of plain error
facially establishes grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice
resulted, we may elect to exercise our discretion and proceed to the second step to consider
whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left
uncorrected. Id.
Discussion
Point I
In Point I, Jasso alleges the trial court plainly erred in accepting his oral waiver of jury
sentencing because his waiver was not done in writing prior to voir dire as required by Section
557.036.4(1) RSMo. This record does not reflect an evident, obvious, or clear error by the trial
court and therefore we decline to review this point for plain error. 1
1 This Court follows State v. Weaver, 178 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) in this regard where the court held that an oral waiver of jury sentencing, while inconsistent with section 557.036.4(1)’s requirement that it be in writing, does not amount to manifest injustice “when [the defendant] requested court sentencing and is merely unhappy with the result.” Id. at 548. See State v. Hilbert, 663 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. banc 2023) (finding Hilbert’s waiver of his
4 Point II
In Point II, Jasso alleges the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the State, after
Jasso had impeached Victim with her deposition testimony, to rehabilitate Victim by adducing
from her on redirect examination that she felt intimidated at her deposition. Jasso objected to the
relevance of the testimony. 2 Here, Jasso argues the State’s only proper course of action was to
move to limit or terminate the Victim’ deposition through Rule 57.03(e). Jasso did not raise this
argument when he objected at trial, nor include it in his motion for a new trial. 3 Therefore, this
point is not preserved and is only reviewable under plain error review.
This record does not reflect an evident, obvious, or clear error by the trial court and
therefore we decline to review this point for plain error.
Point III
In Point III, Jasso alleges the trial court plainly erred in failing to strike sua sponte expert
J.W.’s testimony that she does not “know what [victims] get out of lying” and that she does not
think “[lying] happens as much as the general community thinks it does” after defense counsel
asked if there “is the possibility that whoever’s coming in and making an accusation just isn’t
telling the truth.”
constitutional right to a jury trial was not plain error when defense counsel stated at the pretrial hearing on the record that Hilbert would proceed with a bench trial). 2 “On redirect examination it is proper to examine a witness on any matters which tend to refute, weaken or remove inferences, impressions, implications or suggestions which may have resulted from [] testimony on cross-examination, notwithstanding the facts elicited may be prejudicial to the defendant.” State v. Leisure, 749 S.W.2d 366, 377 (Mo. banc 1988) (quoting State v. Crawford, 619 S.W.2d 735, 740 (Mo. 1981)). 3 “To preserve a claim of error, counsel must object with sufficient specificity to apprise the trial court of the grounds for the objection.” State v. Amick, 462 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Mo. banc 2015). “An issue is not preserved for appellate review if the issue is not included in the motion for a new trial.” State v. Wood, 580 S.W.3d 566, 578 (Mo. banc 2019).
5 “Although plain error review is discretionary, this court will not use plain error to impose
a sua sponte duty on the trial court to correct Defendant’s invited errors.” State v. Clay, 533
S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Mo. banc
2012)). We decline to review this point for plain error as the testimony was invited by defense
counsel’s own question.
Point IV
In Point IV, Jasso seeks to convict the trial court of plain error for its failure to sua sponte
intervene during the State’s closing argument when the State emphasized the thirty-year age
difference between Jasso and Victim.
Laying aside the wide latitude the law affords counsel in closing arguments and the fact
that Jasso has provided no authority for the proposition that it is improper to mention the
difference in age between a perpetrator and his victim in a second-degree rape case, “[w]e do not
expect trial judges to assist counsel in the trial of a lawsuit[.] They preside to judge a lawsuit.”
State v. Giles, 386 S.W.3d 822, 824 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (quoting State v. Drewel, 835 S.W.2d
494, 498 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992)). “[U]ninvited interference by the trial judge in the court
proceedings is generally discouraged in that it risks injecting the judge into the role of participant
and invites trial error.” Id. Accordingly, we decline to review this point for plain error.
Conclusion
Jasso’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
________________________ James M. Dowd, Judge
John P. Torbitzky, P.J., and Michael S. Wright, J., concur.