State of Missouri v. Robert Joseph Neighbors, 502 S.W.3d 745

Background

Robert Neighbors lived in a home with his niece, her husband, and their 7‑year‑old daughter (Victim). Parents later separated; Victim sometimes stayed with Father on weekends.
While at Father’s house Victim disclosed that Neighbors had touched her under her pants; Victim later told forensic interviewer Beth Jackman Neighbors had rubbed her privates on multiple occasions.
Neighbors was tried by jury on two counts of first‑degree child molestation and convicted; the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive life terms as a persistent sexual offender.
During voir dire Neighbors was escorted twice into chambers by two uniformed guards (not shackled); any request to excuse the venire when escorts occurred was made off the record.
The State moved under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075 to admit Victim’s out‑of‑court statements; the court granted the motion after a hearing and admitted Victim’s interview and allowed Father to testify about Victim’s statements over Neighbors’s hearsay objection.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Neighbors preserved objection to venire seeing him escorted by guards	State: No preservation; no timely, on‑the‑record objection.	Neighbors: Venire saw him escorted by uniformed guards, prejudicing jurors; requested venire be excused (off‑record).	Court: Not preserved—off‑record request insufficient; point denied.
Whether denial of mistrial for jury exposure to escorted defendant was error	State: Escort by guards without restraints is not impermissible; no prejudice shown.	Neighbors: Exposure made jurors think he was in custody/dangerous; mistrial warranted.	Court: No abuse of discretion; mere escort (no shackles) not impermissible restraint; mistrial denied.
Whether Father’s testimony recounting Victim’s statements was admissible under § 491.075	State: Trial court conducted hearing, granted § 491.075 motion, and reliability is implicit when objection overruled.	Neighbors: Father’s testimony is hearsay and court failed to make specific reliability findings required by § 491.075.	Court: Admission not an abuse of discretion; specific finding preferred but not required; any error was harmless given duplicative, overwhelming evidence.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Borden, 605 S.W.2d 88 (Mo. banc 1980) (timely, specific objections required to preserve error)
State v. S.A.N., 158 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (appellate review limited to record)
State v. Lang, 515 S.W.2d 507 (Mo. 1974) (specific objections required)
State v. Amick, 462 S.W.3d 413 (Mo. banc 2015) (specificity required to preserve claim)
State v. Peal, 393 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (failure to obtain ruling deemed abandonment)
State v. Smith, 744 S.W.2d 476 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987) (abandonment where no ruling obtained)
State v. Vaughn, 271 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (escort by uniformed guards without shackles not impermissible restraint)
Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (presence of identifiable security not presumptively prejudicial)
State v. Taylor, 298 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. banc 2009) (restraints during trial require essential state interest)
State v. Clemons, 946 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. banc 1997) (mistrial is drastic remedy; review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Parker, 886 S.W.2d 908 (Mo. banc 1994) (trial court controls voir dire; reversal requires abuse of discretion and likely injury)
State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. banc 2008) (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Sprinkle, 122 S.W.3d 652 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (reliability implicit when objection overruled)
State v. Tringl, 848 S.W.2d 29 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (discussing § 491.075 reliability findings)
State v. Brethold, 149 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (specific reliability finding preferred but not required under § 491.075)