State v. Cook, 339 S.W.3d 523

Defendant Billy Cook was convicted by jury of one count of first-degree child molestation, two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, and one count of second-degree statutory sodomy, with an aggregate sentence of 32 years.
The offenses occurred between 2001 and 2005, involving the victim who was eleven to fifteen years old during the acts and who lived with Cook as her stepfather in Imperial, Missouri and later Arnold, Missouri.
The State presented testimony that Cook forced the victim to touch his genitals, masturbated her, and fingered her vagina on separate occasions.
Cook argued the victim fabricated the allegations and testified he never had any sexual contact with her; he claimed he was never alone with the victim in seventeen years of acquaintance.
After trial, Cook sought a remand to consider newly discovered evidence—a recantation by the victim—prompting a remand and a motion-for-new-trial hearing on remand.
The trial court denied the motion for a new trial based on the victim’s recantation, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion given the surrounding circumstances and the phone-recorded evidence showing undue influence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to disclose video interview requires reversal	Cook argues Brady and discovery violations without remedy require reversal.	Cook contends undisclosed videotape could have been exculpatory or impeaching.	No reversible error; not preserved; no plain error found.
Whether evidence was sufficient to support convictions	Victim’s testimony, if believed, suffices to sustain convictions.	Victim’s testimony was inherently unbelievable and uncorroborated.	Sufficient evidence supported all convictions; corroboration not required where testimony credible.
Whether corroboration rule applies to victim’s testimony	Corroboration required due to alleged unbelievable testimony.	Corroboration rule applies to sexual-offense cases when essential elements are in dispute.	Corroboration rule not triggered; discrepancies cited were nonessential; credibility for jury.
Whether denial of motion for new trial based on recantation was an abuse of discretion	Recantation undermines the trial’s integrity and should warrant a new trial.	Recantation was credible and free from undue influence, requiring a new trial.	No abuse; trial court did not find recantation credible or free from undue influence; affirmance of denial.

State v. Bynum, 299 S.W.3d 52 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (Brady and discovery claims require proper preservation and remedy; continuance sought for surprise)
State v. Chambers, 234 S.W.3d 501 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (Preservation of objections and appellate review standards)
State v. Mooney, 670 S.W.2d 510 (Mo.App. E.D.1984) (Recantation in newly discovered evidence context; credibility assessments)
State v. Garner, 976 S.W.2d 57 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (Deference to trial court on credibility; standard for new-trial denial)
State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714 (Mo.banc 2002) (Trial court’s discretion on motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
State v. Baker, 23 S.W.3d 702 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (Victim’s testimony may sustain a conviction absent corroboration; exceptions limited)