State v. Curry
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 71
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Curry charged with class D felony aggravated stalking and misdemeanor/violation of a protection order, based on alleged conduct Sept.–Oct. 2009.
- Order of Protection prohibiting Curry from contacting D.W. or engaging in abuse, stalking, or disturbances was issued Sept. 14, 2009, with service Sept. 16, 2009.
- Evidence showed Curry/ D.W. lived together for nearly five years with three children; threatening calls and attempts to access D.W.’s truck were alleged.
- Witnesses testified about calls to D.W.’s employer and attempts to take her truck; another caller threatened to kill D.W. and children.
- On June 17, 2010, jury convicted Curry of aggravated stalking and violation of protection order; sentences were suspended with probation.
- Appeal challenged dismissal motion, sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of certain testimony, and jury instruction response; court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain-error dismissal ruling warranted? | Curry argues dismissal due to D.W.’s change of mind. | State lacks clear basis; no plain error. | No plain error; denial affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated stalking and protection order | Evidence showed harassment and protected-status violations. | Evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed. |
| Admissibility of DW's belief about guilt and dismissed order evidence | Excluded testimony and dismissed-order evidence prejudiced defense. | Exclusions were proper; not prejudicial. | Exclusions not reversible error; trial proper. |
| Jury-question response and Instruction 5 preservation | Trial court erred in responding to jury question. | No preservation of objection; no reversible error. | Unpreserved or meritless; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard for sufficiency review; deferential to trier of fact)
- State v. Roper, 136 S.W.3d 891 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004) (plain-error standard explained)
- State v. Mozee, 112 S.W.3d 102 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (evidence-admission of prejudice standard)
- State v. Hirt, 16 S.W.3d 628 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (admissibility; offers of proof required)
- State v. Tisius, 92 S.W.3d 751 (Mo. banc 2002) (necessity of admissibility foundations)
- Guess v. Escobar, 26 S.W.3d 235 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (logically/legal relevance balancing)