State v. Cannafax
344 S.W.3d 279
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Cannafax was convicted at bench trial of six counts relating to abuse of his three daughters, K.L., N.L., and V.L.; two counts of first-degree statutory rape and four counts of first-degree statutory sodomy.
- He received concurrent 25-year terms on all counts.
- Amended Information charged specific acts across multiple timeframes and residences in Greene County, Missouri.
- Trial testimony detailed abuse beginning when the children were very young and continuing at three addresses from about 1997–2008, with V.L. reporting the abuse in 2008.
- Cannafax challenged sufficiency of evidence for three counts (involving K.L. and V.L.) and argued issues regarding corpus delicti, timing, and the applicability of an eighty-five percent sentencing rule and lifetime supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Count VI sufficiency | Cannafax contends no proof of touching or penetration after 2000. | State asserts sufficient evidence of touching and possible penetration after amendment. | Evidence supported deviate sexual intercourse beyond doubt. |
| Corpus delicti | State failed to prove corpus delicti for Count VI independent of confession. | K.L.’s corroborating testimony and other evidence established corpus delicti. | Corpus delicti proven; confession properly admitted. |
| Counts III and IV timing | State must prove dates to support lifetime-supervision eligibility; time is not essential for sex offenses. | Time is not essential; offenses may be proven before information date within statutory limits. | Sufficient evidence supports Counts III and IV even if dates differ from Amended Information. |
| Counts III/IV under fourteen | Evidence shows V.L. under fourteen during acts; must show multiple offenses before fourteen. | Disputed timing but evidence indicates continuous abuse under fourteen. | There was sufficient evidence V.L. was under fourteen during acts; Counts III/IV upheld. |
| Eighty-five percent rule and lifetime supervision | Amended dangerous-felony definition applies to Counts I, II, V, VI for early-release rule; lifetime supervision could apply to Counts III/IV if post-2006 acts. | Rule and lifetime supervision depend on whether acts occurred after 2003/2006 amendments; not ripe for review here. | Eighty-five percent rule applicable; lifetime supervision issue not ripe for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Craig, 287 S.W.3d 676 (Mo. banc 2009) (standard of review for sufficiency in court-tried cases)
- State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. banc 2005) (sufficiency standard and standard of review)
- State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. banc 1998) (standard for weighing evidence and inferences)
- State v. Madorie, 156 S.W.3d 351 (Mo. banc 2005) (corpus delicti; corroborating facts suffice)
- State v. Sardeson, 220 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (corpus delicti corroboration standard)
- Rentschler v. Nixon, 311 S.W.3d 783 (Mo. banc 2010) (due process and retroactive application of dangerous-felony rules)
- State v. Carney, 195 S.W.3d 567 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (time is not essential element in sex offenses; broad time frames)
- Forrest v. State, 290 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. banc 2009) (ripeness and speculative future penalties)