State v. Crites
400 S.W.3d 828
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Crites appeals after a bench trial convicting him of forcible sodomy, child kidnapping, and enticement of a child; suppression ruling challenged.
- Victim, 10, testified to being assaulted at a creek on July 15, 2009; jacket linked suspect to Crites, who worked at LMS Intellibound.
- Investigation included a jacket, hair samples, and a victim interview; Victim identified Crites as the assailant.
- On July 17, 2009, Crites was interviewed; Miranda warning given, waiver signed; interrogation used Reid-method techniques; handwritten and videotaped statements obtained.
- Bench trial held June 29-30, 2011; court found guilty on counts I, V, VI; acquitted on III and IV; Count II dismissed.
- Crites argued the statements were involuntary and improperly used; the trial court’s suppression ruling (or lack of clear ruling) is challenged on appeal; court ultimately affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was denial of the motion to suppress statements proper? | State argues statements were voluntary and properly admitted. | Crites contends interrogation coerced and his rights were violated. | Denial upheld; no clear error. |
| If admission was error, was it harmless? | State asserts any error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence. | Crites claims prejudice from unlawfully obtained statements. | Harmless error; no prejudicial impact. |
| Did presumption in a judge-tried case affect admissibility review? | State argues no reliance by judge on the statements. | Crites asserts potential prejudice from inadmissible evidence. | Presumption applied; no clear reliance shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sund, 215 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. banc 2007) (standard for motions to suppress appellate review)
- State v. Bewley, 68 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (presumption in judge-tried cases regarding inadmissible evidence)
- State v. Sladek, 835 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. banc 1992) (admission of evidence in jury-waived cases non-prejudicial if not relied upon)
- State v. Ernst, 164 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (no clear showing of reliance on inadmissible evidence)
- State v. Love, 134 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004) (admission not error where evidence not shown to be critical)
- State v. Jackson, 248 S.W.3d 117 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)