State v. Cobb, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 402

Defendant Cobb was convicted by a jury on ten counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree.
Two victims, H.A. (born March 1989) and D.A. (born June 1991), disclosed abuse that occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s.
The alleged abuse involved sexual acts by Cobb and the mother, with extensive counseling and multiple placements for the boys.
At trial, H.A. testified to domestic abuse by Cobb and to generalized sexual abuse by Cobb and his mother; D.A. testified similarly, including acts of anal intercourse and oral sex.
Cobb challenged the trial court’s decisions: (a) limiting cross-examination of H.A. about an August 16, 2005 police interview; (b) excluding defense expert Dr. Schultz after a sanction for failure to provide a synopsis.
The trial court denied both challenges; the jury found Cobb guilty on all counts and the court sentenced him to consecutive twenty-year terms as a prior offender.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of cross-examination error	Cobb asserts trial court abused discretion by limiting cross-examination of H.A. regarding the Aurora interview.	Cobb argues the circumstances surrounding the police interview were probative and admissible under rule of completeness.	Point I denied; not preserved for review.
Admissibility of proffered defense expert	Schultz testimony could show counseling techniques undermining credibility of the youth witnesses.	Dr. Schultz would aid credibility assessment and defense by challenging interviewing methods.	Point II denied; Dr. Schultz's testimony inadmissible.

State v. Walkup, 220 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. banc 2007) (relevance and admissibility of expert testimony in abuse cases)
State v. Biezer, 947 S.W.2d 540 (Mo. App. 1997) (limits on expert testimony about interviewing techniques; risk to credibility)
State v. Sloan, 912 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. App. 1995) (expert testimony on interviewing procedures; not direct credibility of victim)
State v. Tyra, 153 S.W.3d 341 (Mo. App. 2005) (types of expert testimony in child abuse cases)
State v. Foster, 244 S.W.3d 800 (Mo. App. 2008) (prohibition on expert testimony commenting on witness credibility)
State v. Churchill, 98 S.W.3d 536 (Mo. banc 2003) (limits on expert testimony regarding credibility)
State v. Foust, 920 S.W.2d 949 (Mo. App. 1996) (children susceptible to suggestive interviewing techniques; expert testimony context)
State v. Robinson, 194 S.W.3d 379 (Mo. App. 2006) (preservation of evidentiary issues on appeal)
State v. Johnson, 943 S.W.2d 285 (Mo. App. 1997) (motion-for-new-trial preservation rules)
Claus v. Intrigue Hotels, L.L.C., 328 S.W.3d 777 (Mo. App. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)