554 S.W.3d 548
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant (Nathan Calistro Falig, Jr.) was charged by amended information with eight offenses stemming from a September 22, 2015 sexual assault of Victim; tried to the court after waiving a jury.
- Trial court convicted Defendant on all counts except armed criminal action (Count VI) and imposed concurrent and consecutive terms totaling 30 years (noting a scrivener's error listing Count IV as nine years).
- Facts: Defendant broke into Victim’s locked bedroom, violently assaulted and struck Victim’s breasts and vagina, and Victim was crying and asking him to stop.
- During the assault, Victim told Defendant he was hurting her; Defendant responded that it was “turning him on.”
- Counts at issue: Count III (deviate sexual intercourse—genital contact by hand for purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire) and Count IV (sexual contact—touching of female breast for purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire).
- Defendant conceded the contact but argued the conduct was about power/control, not sexual arousal, and thus insufficient to prove the statutory sexual-purpose element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Defendant struck Victim’s genitals for purpose of sexual arousal (Count III) | Evidence and inferences (including Defendant’s admission that it turned him on) support a finding of sexual purpose | Acts were motivated by power/control, not sexual desire; sexual-purpose element not proved beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — testimony including Defendant’s statement supports a reasonable inference he acted to arouse/gratify sexual desire |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Defendant struck Victim’s breasts for purpose of sexual arousal (Count IV) | Same: surrounding circumstances and sexual nature of act permit inference of sexual purpose | Same: conduct was about domination, not sexual arousal | Affirmed — court may infer sexual intent from circumstances and the sexual nature of the touching |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ess, 453 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. banc 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. banc 2001) (court may not rely on speculative or forced inferences)
- State v. Clark, 490 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. banc 2016) (appeals-court standard of review quoted)
- State v. Livingston-Rivard, 461 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) (bench-trial findings treated like jury verdict)
- State v. Mitchell, 203 S.W.3d 246 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (bench-trial standard application)
- State v. Ganzorig, 533 S.W.3d 824 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (jury may infer sexual intent from surrounding circumstances or sexual nature of the act)
- State v. Browning, 357 S.W.3d 229 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (same standard applies to related issues)