State of Missouri v. Claude Chambers, 481 S.W.3d 1

Defendant Claude Chambers lived with the victim (then under 14) and the victim’s mother; the victim testified that Chambers repeatedly inserted his penis into the victim’s anus and told the victim to keep it secret.
Chambers was charged with first-degree statutory sodomy and timely filed a Rule 32.03 written application for change of venue within ten days of plea.
The change-of-venue application sat in the case file for ~8–9 months; defense counsel repeatedly told the court on multiple pretrial occasions that there were no pending motions and that the cause should remain set for trial.
Three weeks before trial defense counsel scheduled depositions and sought continuances; continuance motions were denied or not pressed, and the defense only notified the court of the pending venue application the day before trial.
At trial (after counsel waived presence and the defendant waived counsel and presence), a jury convicted Chambers of first-degree statutory sodomy. The court of appeals affirmed, holding Chambers waived the Rule 32.03 venue right and rejecting his other claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Chambers)	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying timely Rule 32.03 change-of-venue application	Application was waived by Chambers’ conduct and representations; court properly denied it	Timely application required mandatory transfer; denial was reversible error	Denial affirmed — Chambers waived the right by inaction and affirmative statements that no motions were pending
Whether evidence/instructions were insufficient because charging language required proof of penetration by "an object"	Evidence showed deviate sexual intercourse (penis-to-anus) which satisfies statute; any wording variance did not cause manifest injustice	Charging/instruction language used "object," so verdict conflicts with proof of penis penetration	Affirmed — no plain error; evidence supports deviate sexual intercourse and jury could not have been misled
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying continuance requests	Defense had ample time (≈8 months) and made strategic choices; no strong showing of prejudice	Counsel lacked adequate time to prepare after late depositions; denial prejudiced defense	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; defendant failed to show prejudice or likely benefit from continuance

State ex rel. Dilliner v. Cummins, 92 S.W.2d 605 (Mo. 1936) (change-of-venue is a statutory privilege that may be waived)
Bartleman v. Humphrey, 441 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. 1969) (waiver may be implied by conduct; requires clear and unequivocal intent)
O’Connell v. Sch. Dist. of Springfield R-12, 830 S.W.2d 410 (Mo. banc 1992) (waiver shown where conduct clearly and unequivocally indicates relinquishment of right)
State ex rel. Dir. of Revenue v. Scott, 919 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. banc 1996) (failure to include notice of hearing for change-of-judge motion not fatal where parties had opportunity to be heard)
State v. Blocker, 133 S.W.3d 502 (Mo. banc 2004) (continuance rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; party must show prejudice)