State of Missouri v. Christopher C. Claycomb
2015 Mo. LEXIS 102
| Mo. | 2015Background
- Claycomb convicted of felony criminal nonsupport under §568.040 for failing to provide adequate support during Aug 1, 2005–Jul 31, 2006.
- He had a 2004 dissolution judgment requiring $247 monthly child support.
- State presented that Claycomb paid through Sep 2005 but made no payments for the next 10 months; ex-wife testified no direct payments were made.
- Claycomb testified he may have worked but did not recall exact employment; he later claimed to have caught up payments by 2007 after a seizure disorder.
- Record showed no evidence of any in-kind support; trial court found him guilty and imposed four years’ imprisonment, suspended, with five years’ probation.
- Rule 29.11(e) permits appellate review of sufficiency claims without a motion for new trial; majority held evidence was sufficient without proving lack of in-kind support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to prove lack of adequate support? | Claycomb. | Claycomb. | Yes; evidence of no monetary support with a child support order sufficed. |
| Must the State prove lack of in-kind support to establish criminal nonsupport? | Claycomb. | Claycomb. | No; proving no monetary support, without explicit in-kind failure, can be prima facie evidence. |
| Was Claycomb's sufficiency challenge preserved for appeal despite no motion for new trial? | Claycomb. | Claycomb. | Yes; preserved under Rule 29.11(e)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Latall, 271 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2008) (review standard for sufficiency: accept guilt-supporting evidence and inferences)
- State v. Reed, 181 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. banc 2006) (parent-child relationship establishes duty; sufficiency standard)
- State v. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. banc 2013) (child support order provides evidence of adequate support; total nonpayment relevant)
- State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. banc 1998) (rejected equally valid inferences rule for prima facie case)
- State v. Seeler, 316 S.W.3d 920 (Mo. banc 2010) (state must prove every element beyond reasonable doubt)