State of Missouri v. Larry White
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 540
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Larry White, J.R.’s stepfather, was tried and convicted by a jury of multiple counts: two counts of first‑degree statutory rape, six counts of first‑degree statutory sodomy, and one count of incest, all sentences concurrent.
- J.R., born April 2000, alleged repeated sexual abuse by White, including oral, vaginal, and anal acts; one episode was alleged on August 28, 2010, and other acts were alleged to have occurred prior to that date.
- After J.R. disclosed to her mother, police Detective Angela Candler Bruno conducted a cursory interview and referred the case to the Child Advocacy Center (CAC); a CAC forensic interview (videotaped) and a medical exam (no trauma found) followed.
- At trial the State presented J.R.’s in‑court testimony, Detective Bruno’s testimony about the cursory interview, and the CAC interviewer Beverly Tucker’s testimony plus the videotaped CAC interview.
- White objected at trial under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075 to admission of the child’s out‑of‑court statements; on appeal he raised additional theories (duplicative hearsay, detective testimony on the ultimate issue, insufficiency of evidence/unanimity, and insufficiency on incest). The court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of J.R.’s out‑of‑court statements under § 491.075 | Testimony by detective and CAC interviewer had independent probative value (procedures, child’s behavior, consistency across interviews) and was admissible | Testimony was duplicative of J.R.’s testimony/CAC video and improperly bolstered the victim; duplicative hearsay should be excluded | Preservation problem: White raised a different theory at trial; plain‑error review applied and court held admission did not produce manifest injustice — testimony permissible for its independent probative value |
| Detective’s testimony that she "determined a crime occurred" | Testimony described investigatory process and protocol for cursory interviews | Testimony improperly opined on the ultimate issue for the jury (that a crime occurred) | Not preserved; under plain‑error review court found statements described procedure and referral decision, not guilt, so no manifest injustice |
| Sufficiency of evidence for pre‑Aug 28 acts and jury unanimity (Instructions 7–10,15) | Evidence (J.R.’s in‑court and CAC statements) and instructions specifying time span, body part, and location provided adequate specificity for unanimity and supported convictions | J.R.’s prior‑acts testimony was vague, inconsistent, and lacking dates — insufficient to convict; instructions allowed non‑unanimous verdicts | Viewing evidence in State’s favor, inconsistencies were for the jury; Porter abolished special corroboration/destructive‑contradictions rules; instructions specified time, body part and location so unanimity protected; convictions upheld |
| Sufficiency of evidence for incest count (marriage/stepchild relationship) | Testimony established that White married J.R.’s mother when J.R. was two and no evidence of divorce; reasonable juror could find marriage existed during alleged acts | No credible evidence proving White and mother were married at relevant times, so incest element (stepchild relationship) not met | Evidence sufficient for a reasonable juror to find marriage/stepchild relationship existed; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Knese, 985 S.W.2d 759 (Mo. banc 1999) (specificity required to preserve appellate claims; objections must mirror appellate theory)
- State v. Seever, 733 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1987) (pre‑legislative change rule excluding duplicative CAC recordings)
- State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662 (Mo. banc 1995) (out‑of‑court statements admissible where not wholly duplicative and have independent probative value)
- State v. Porter, 439 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. banc 2014) (abolished corroboration and destructive‑contradictions doctrines; credibility issues reserved for jury)
- State v. Celis‑Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011) (jury unanimity requirement when multiple acts charged in one count; necessity of electing an act or instructing unanimity)
- State v. Cason, 596 S.W.2d 436 (Mo. 1980) (lay witness testimony should not state ultimate issue for jury)