State v. Breedlove, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1209

Breedlove was convicted of the class C felony abuse of a child after a bench trial following a police investigation of his two-year-old son M.B.'s bruising.
Officers observed bruising on M.B.’s buttocks and hip and photographed a cut under his eye; emergency custody was taken of M.B.
Breedlove admitted spanking M.B. multiple times, including through the diaper, and provided a handwritten statement; he also stated spankings occurred four to five times in four hours.
Two officers testified about the severity of the bruising without objection; photographs were admitted at trial.
Breedlove challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of lay opinions regarding the bruising’s severity; the trial court overruled on both points and sentenced Breedlove to five years, suspended, with probation.
On appeal, the court affirmed, holding sufficient evidence supported cruelty/inhuman punishment and no plain error in the lay-opinion testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	Breedlove argues the State failed to prove cruel and inhuman punishment and causation.	Breedlove contends the bruising facts and causation are insufficient to prove he inflicted cruel and inhuman punishment knowingly.	Sufficient evidence supports conviction; bruising plus spankings support cruel and inhuman punishment
Knowingly inflicted punishment	Evidence shows Breedlove spanked repeatedly, implying knowledge of likely bruising.	No direct admission to causing bruising; no explicit knowledge shown beyond spankings.	Evidence supports knowledge under §568.060 via circumstantial inference from repeated spankings and resulting bruising
Plain error in lay testimony	Officers’ testimony about severity was admissible lay opinion given training and common experience.	Testimony about severity based on personal parenting experience should be excluded as improper lay opinion.	No plain error; testimony was proper lay opinion tethered to training and common experience

State v. Craig, 287 S.W.3d 676 (Mo. banc 2009) (sufficiency standard for court-tried criminal cases; reasonable-doubt standard)
State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. banc 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; defer to verdict on credibility)
State v. Latall, 271 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2008) (inference-based determination of guilt when intent is inferred from facts)
State v. McCleod, 186 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. App. W.D.2006) (reweighing evidence not allowed; credibility for fact-finder)
State v. Mann, 129 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. App. S.D.2004) (weight given to witness testimony rests with finder of fact)
State v. Cannafax, 344 S.W.3d 279 (Mo. App. S.D.2011) (testimony credibility and reliability considerations for lay opinions)
State v. Silvey, 980 S.W.2d 103 (Mo. App. S.D.1998) (definition of cruel and inhuman punishment in context of abuse cases)
State v. Still, 216 S.W.3d 261 (Mo. App. S.D.2007) (excessive spanking as cruel and inhuman punishment)
State v. Sumowski, 794 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. banc 1990) (excessive force resulting in visible bruising supports cruelty)
State v. Wilson, 333 S.W.3d 526 (Mo. App. S.D.2011) (case-by-case approach to evaluating abuse evidence)
State v. Lauer, 955 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. App. S.D.1997) (serious bruising as evidence of cruel and inhuman punishment)