State of Missouri v. Duane Michaud, 600 S.W.3d 757

Victim was 14 and living with her sister; Defendant also stayed in the same house and accepted Victim’s offer to let him sleep in her bedroom.
While on her bed Defendant put an arm and leg over Victim, touched her neck/face and moved his hand toward her waistband and tried to put fingers in her mouth; Victim left upset and later reported the incident to family and police.
Defendant initially denied living at the sister’s home, then admitted staying one or two nights and denied inappropriate touching or memory of the specific night.
Defendant was tried by a jury, convicted of attempted enticement of a child (under section 566.151) and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; he appealed.
On appeal Defendant argued (1) the trial court erred by refusing his non‑MAI instructions requiring the jury to find he knew the victim was under 15, and (2) the court abused its discretion by sustaining an objection that prevented cross‑examination of Sister about Victim’s tendency to exaggerate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing Defendant’s non‑MAI verdict and converse instructions that would have required the jury to find Defendant knew Victim was under 15	The State relied on MAI‑conforming instructions that required purposeful attempt to entice a child under 15; those instructions correctly stated the law	Michaud argued the jury must be separately instructed to find he knew Victim was <15, otherwise the State was not required to prove all elements	Court affirmed: MAI instructions required purposeful attempt to entice a child <15, which necessarily imports knowledge of age; adding redundant knowledge language was unnecessary and refusal was not error
Whether the court abused its discretion by sustaining an objection that prevented cross‑examination of Sister about Victim’s tendency to exaggerate	The State objected that Sister would be offering a personal opinion about another witness’s credibility and had not been shown to know Victim’s reputation for truthfulness	Michaud sought to elicit testimony that Victim has a tendency to exaggerate; he contends this impeachment was important to credibility	Court affirmed: Defendant failed to preserve issue by making an offer of proof; without an offer the court could not assess admissibility; personal opinion testimony about credibility is inadmissible; no plain error shown

State v. Sanders, 522 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. banc 2017) (standard for reversal based on instructional error)
State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (MAI instructions presumptively valid and must be used when applicable)
State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2016) (elements for attempt: purpose plus substantial step)
State v. Blurton, 484 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. banc 2016) (rejecting non‑MAI instructions when MAI accurately states the law)
State v. Hunt, 451 S.W.3d 251 (Mo. banc 2014) (offer of proof required to preserve exclusion of evidence)
State v. Hillman, 417 S.W.3d 239 (Mo. banc 2013) (purpose of offers of proof to demonstrate admissibility)
State v. Bennish, 479 S.W.3d 678 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (impeachment by reputation for truthfulness is admissible; personal opinion about another’s veracity is not)
State v. Osborn, 318 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (knowledge of a victim’s age may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)