State v. Biggs, 333 S.W.3d 472

Biggs was convicted of abuse of a child after his seven-year-old son showed bruising and stated Biggs whipped him with a belt.
The bruising appeared in various stages of healing, suggesting multiple incidents during visits with Biggs.
The boy, who had a medical condition causing incontinence, described being belt-spanked in the master bedroom and naked for punishment.
The state sought to admit the boy’s out-of-court statements via section 491.075; several witnesses testified to those statements, and a videotaped interview was admitted.
Biggs objected on confrontation, due process, and equal protection grounds, and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and jury instructions.
The trial court found sufficient indicia of reliability under section 491.075, and the jury convicted Biggs; on direct appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation clause validity	Biggs: 491.075 violates confrontation clause	Biggs: availability of witness not proper cross-examined	Section 491.075 valid; no confrontation clause violation
Due process and reliability	Biggs: statements are unreliable evidence	Biggs: reliability established by court under statute	Due process not violated; reliability findings supported
Equal protection	Biggs: statute unconstitutionally discriminates	Biggs: must show fundamental right impact	No equal protection violation; statute serves legitimate state purpose
Non-constitutional challenges to 491.075	Biggs: risk of improper bolstering; jury instructions inadequate	Biggs: statute properly applied; no bolstering first principle violated; instruction not required	Admissibility not improper bolstering; third-degree assault instruction not required; sufficient evidence supported conviction
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence insufficient to prove abuse of a seven-year-old beyond reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient under statute and standard	Evidence sufficient to convict Biggs of abuse of a child

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (established confrontation clause framework for testimonial statements)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1988) (cross-examination rights not guaranteed for unsatisfactory testimony)
Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (opportunity to confront is central to trial fairness)
State v. Jankiewicz, 831 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. banc 1992) (availability analysis distinguished from uncooperative/unresponsive witnesses)
State v. Williams, 729 S.W.2d 197 (Mo. banc 1987) (due process considerations; complete defense principle)