State v. Garvey
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1516
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Garvey was convicted by jury of four counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, two counts of first-degree child molestation, and one count of attempted first-degree statutory rape based on alleged acts involving O.B. from 2002–2006.
- O.B. moved in with Mother and Garvey (Mother's boyfriend) in 2002; Garvey babysat O.B. during Mother’s work.
- In fourth–sixth grades, Garvey allegedly touched O.B.’s breasts and vagina with hands and mouth, and attempted intercourse in sixth grade.
- Garvey took photographs of O.B. in underwear and discussed making money from similar photos; Mother objected.
- In 2006, after a marital dispute, Mother and O.B. moved out; O.B. disclosed sexual abuse to Mother leading to hospital examination by Dr. Berglar.
- Trial included several exhibits (letters from Garvey to O.B.; Munzlinger deposition) and Garvey testified denying intercourse or touching O.B.; Court directed verdict on Count VII but allowed an attempted statutory rape instruction; sentences were concurrent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenge to juror for-cause and impartiality | Garvey argues LL and CL should have been stricken for cause | State contends court did not abuse discretion; jurors could remain impartial | No reversible error; court properly exercised discretion; no clear bias shown |
| Plain error in closing argument | Garvey claims prosecutorial remarks stating defense lied harmed fairness | State's rebuttal responses were within proper scope and supported by record | No plain error; did not decisively affect outcome |
| Admission of testimony about other cases’ findings | Garvey asserts prejudice from testimony about lack of findings in other cases | State showed relevance: absence of findings does not refute allegations; limited prejudice | Admissible; not unduly prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gill, 167 S.W.3d 184 (Mo. banc 2005) (juror qualification review and standard of review for for-cause challenges)
- State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905 (Mo. banc 1992) (trial court wide discretion in voir dire; open mind requirement)
- State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527 (Mo. banc 2010) (voir dire; bias predisposition does not equal disqualification)
- State v. Walton, 796 S.W.2d 374 (Mo. banc 1990) (independent inquiry required only when equivocal about ability to be fair)
- State v. Davenport, 924 S.W.2d 6 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (prosecutor may respond to defendant’s closing argument within limits)
- State v. Albanese, 9 S.W.3d 39 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (mistrial remanded only under extraordinary circumstances)
- State v. Chism, 252 S.W.3d 178 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (closing-argument proper limits; impact on outcome)
- State v. Kee, 956 S.W.2d 298 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (scope of closing arguments)
- State v. Mozee, 112 S.W.3d 102 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (evidence admissibility; prejudice standard)