State v. Anderson
348 S.W.3d 840
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Anderson was convicted of statutory sodomy in the first degree for acts with B.A.J. in October 2005.
- B.A.J. testified that Anderson forced his fingers into her vagina during a sleepover at his home.
- Anderson admitted the overnight stay and that B.A.J. slept in his bed, but denied any sexual contact.
- B.A.J.’s mother testified to a later disclosure and changes in B.A.J.’s behavior after the incident.
- Anderson contended the State’s evidence was insufficient and challenged trial rulings on witnesses and discovery.
- The appellate court reviewed sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, discovery sanctions, and rebuttal/endorsement issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the State’s evidence. | Anderson argues B.A.J.’s testimony alone clouded with doubt. | Anderson contends the accuser’s testimony was not submissible. | Evidence deemed sufficient for verdict beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Improper bolstering of the victim’s testimony. | Mother’s out-of-court disclosure testimony improperly bolstered B.A.J.’s in-court testimony. | Rule 30.20 review should apply; plain error threshold not met. | No plain error; discretion to review denied. |
| Late endorsement of a defense witness (Mangiaracina). | Defense witness endorsement was late but the testimony would not prejudice State. | Exclusion was too drastic and prejudicial. | Court did not abuse discretion in excluding the witness. |
| Rebuttal testimony by Mangiaracina. | Mangiaracina should be allowed as rebuttal to impeach the accuser. | Testimony was cumulative; no rebuttal witness warranted. | No error; Mangiaracina not admitted as rebuttal witness. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baldwin, 571 S.W.2d 236 (Mo. banc 1978) (corroboration not required for non-self-destructive inconsistencies)
- State v. Sumowski, 794 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. banc 1990) (reliability/credibility for jury; single witness may suffice)
- State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. banc 1989) (jury may believe all/some/none of testimony)
- State v. Johnson, 447 S.W.2d 285 (Mo. 1969) (addressing sufficiency after acquittal motions)
- State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406 (Mo. banc 2002) (standard for sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- State v. Ram sey, 864 S.W.2d 320 (Mo. banc 1993) (improper bolstering defined and analyzed)