State of Missouri v. Jarrad Ryan Vandergrift, SC99913

Background:

Appellant Jarrad Vandergrift was convicted by a jury of three counts of first‑degree child molestation and three counts of first‑degree statutory sodomy; verdicts returned Feb. 3, 2021.
At a post‑trial hearing on April 7, 2021, the court orally overruled motions, pronounced judgment, and imposed consecutive sentences (total 135 years) in Vandergrift’s presence; appellate rights were announced.
Vandergrift filed a notice of appeal on April 14, 2021 (using the Court’s Form 8‑A(3) and citing April 7 as the judgment date); the circuit clerk forwarded a clerk‑prepared “judgment form” dated April 15, 2021 to the court of appeals but that form was never entered on the circuit‑court record.
A Rule 29.07(c) judgment form was finally entered of record by the clerk on December 2, 2021 (substantively matching the April 15 form); the absence of that written entry at the time of the notice of appeal prompted a jurisdictional dispute.
Trial‑court rulings at issue: (1) overruling of an amended/new motion for new trial (amended motion filed March 24, 2021 raising newly discovered evidence); and (2) admission of school counselor Siobhanna Mayotte’s testimony about delayed disclosure of sexual abuse.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Vandergrift)	Held
1) When does the 10‑day appeal period begin (rendition vs. entry)?	Appeal right is statutory but is triggered by final judgment; date of rendition counts.	Vandergrift argued issues about whether written judgment entry was required before appeal.	Held: Appeal period triggered by oral rendition/sentence in defendant’s presence (rendition), so Vandergrift’s April 14 notice was timely.
2) Does failure to have a written Rule 29.07(c) judgment entered before notice of appeal deprive appellate jurisdiction?	Timely notice suffices; a written judgment must be in the record for review but late entry does not destroy jurisdiction.	Vandergrift contended clerk’s late entry might affect jurisdiction/appeal timeliness.	Held: Late clerk entry does not divest appellate jurisdiction; court may not review until a proper judgment is in the record, but jurisdiction attached at rendition.
3) Was the amended motion for new trial (raising newly discovered evidence) timely and did it require a new trial?	State argued the amended/new evidence claim was untimely and, on merits, not sufficient to require a new trial.	Vandergrift argued newly discovered evidence (alleged post‑disclosure intercourse) would likely produce a different result.	Held: Amended motion was untimely (filed after Rule 29.11 deadlines) and is a nullity; court reviewed ex gratia and found the new evidence would not produce manifest injustice or require a new trial.
4) Was Mayotte’s testimony about delayed disclosure inadmissible expert opinion under § 490.065?	State: Mayotte was qualified by training/experience to give generalized (non‑scientific) testimony about delayed disclosure; it was admissible.	Vandergrift: Testimony was unqualified expert opinion and should have been excluded; objection preserved via motion for new trial.	Held: No plain error; Mayotte’s education, training and experience sufficed and such generalized delayed‑disclosure testimony is admissible.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Vinson, 87 S.W.2d 637 (Mo. 1935) (rendition is oral pronouncement; entry is ministerial record necessary for appellate review)
State v. Waters, 597 S.W.3d 185 (Mo. banc 2020) (judgment final when it disposes of all issues; sentence often determines finality)
State v. Terry, 304 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. banc 2010) (standards and remand procedure for newly discovered evidence; appellate power to prevent miscarriage of justice)
State v. Minor, 648 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2022) (permitting generalized delayed‑disclosure testimony from a trained CPC interviewer under § 490.065)
State v. Johnson, 617 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. banc 2021) (court’s duty to determine jurisdiction sua sponte when necessary)
State v. White, 99 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. 1936) (remand for entry of judgment where only oral pronouncement appears)
State v. Skaggs, 248 S.W.2d 635 (Mo. 1952) (need for written record entry for appellate review)