State v. Kidd

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion affirming Mr. Kidd’s conviction.

*12In his first point on appeal, Mr. Kidd claims that the trial court erred in submitting Instruction No. 6, the verdict director for acceding to corruption, because it did not specifically define the known legal duty that he allegedly violated in return for sexual favors from Ms. Ness. Instruction No. 6, which was patterned after MAI-CR3d 330.12, provided in pertinent part:

If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that on or about July 3, 1998, in the County of Platte, State of…