State v. Bracken
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1626
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Bracken was indicted on sixteen charges stemming from alleged March 2008 acts of violence against his wife, including forcible rape, deviate sexual assault, domestic assaults, and unlawful weapon use.
- S.M.B. testified about repeated acts of sexual violence during the last week of March 2008; the alleged abuse began after a confrontation over her contacting her niece’s husband for basement help.
- Defense cross-examination of S.M.B. about her prior employment was cut off; defense offered an offer of proof that she had been terminated for lying, and that the State’s witness Supervisor knew of this history.
- Supervisor testified about S.M.B.’s demeanor in March 2008 and her overall truthfulness; she stated S.M.B. could be truthful and would not have been hired for a sensitive position if concerns existed.
- Bracken presented alibi evidence and questioned the dates of the alleged abuse; after trial, the jury partially convicted Bracken on counts 15 and 16, and deadlocked on the other counts, resulting in a mistrial on those counts.
- The trial court later faced a deadlocked jury and a potential coercion issue; a hammer instruction was not given, and a mistrial was declared for counts other than 15 and 16, with Bracken ultimately sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years for forcible rape and two years for attempt to commit deviate sexual assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of judgment for appeal when not all counts resolved | State argues no final judgment because many counts pending | Bracken argues judgment final on counts sentenced | Judgment final where counts 15–16 were sentenced; appeal permitted |
| Evidentiary limits on cross-examining S.M.B. and admitting extrinsic evidence | Bracken claims error limiting cross-exam and excluding prior false statements | Bracken asserts credibility issue outweighed by probative value | No plain error; insufficient offer of proof details to assess probative value or prejudice |
| Trial court's bench intervention perceived as aiding State | Bracken argues court directed questioning to limit impeachment | Court comments were responsive to defense objection and outside jury | No plain error; bench discussion occurred off the jury and was not prejudicial |
| Coercion of verdict and juror misconduct | Bracken contends coercive conduct due to delayed hammer instruction and deadlock | Court did not coercively direct verdict; extended deliberation occurred | No coercion; hammer instruction not required; juror misconduct arguments denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Kardesch, 313 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. banc 2010) (credibility issues and admissibility of prior acts; trial court's discretion in balancing probative value and prejudice)
- Wagner v. Ruddy, 582 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1979) (final judgment for appeal; scope of trial court jurisdiction upon entry of judgment)
- State v. Welch, 865 S.W.2d 434 (Mo.App. E.D.1993) (finality of judgment upon sentencing in criminal cases)
- State v. Wakefield, 689 S.W.2d 809 (Mo.App. S.D.1985) (extension of finality rule to all counts in petition in criminal cases)
- State v. Jackson, 836 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.App. E.D.1992) (factors for evaluating potential prejudice in evidentiary rulings)