State v. Greenlee, 327 S.W.3d 602

Background

Greenlee was convicted by a jury of first-degree statutory sodomy and sentenced to life as a prior offender after a retrial following a mistrial from the first trial.
The charged incident involved Greenlee deviating sexual intercourse with a child under fourteen, based on observing Greenlee with Victim on a couch and Victim’s statements and clinic/M.D. findings.
Evidence at trial included Mother’s testimony of Greenlee’s actions, Victim’s statements, and male DNA found on Victim’s underwear; Victim described touching and Greenlee’s finger to her ‘private parts.’
Greenlee challenged proceedings across nine points, including pre-trial publicity, speedy-trial concerns, evidentiary rulings, cross-examination limits, trial scheduling, and sufficiency of evidence.
The trial court granted/gained rulings on motions in limine restricting certain cross-examinations and expert testimony; Greenlee also argued the verdict-directing instruction was vague.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pre-trial publicity and prosecutorial misconduct	Greenlee contends publicity tainted jurors and denied impartial trial.	State law and voir dire protected juror impartiality; publicity was limited and not coercive.	No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; impartial jury found.
Speedy trial rights	Delays (approximately 13 months to first trial and 14 more to second) violated Barker factors.	Delays weighed to State due to docket, defendant’s continuances, and lack of demonstrated prejudice.	No speedy trial violation; delays did not prejudice defense under Barker factors.
Motion to compel certain discovery/evidence	Greenlee needed to interview Victim/Mother and access medical/records for his expert.	Requests framed as discovery/objection to expert, indistinct from admissibility; record deficient.	Abandoned due to deficient record and improper briefing; point denied.
Cross-examination of Mother about past sexual abuse / use of Blackwell testimony	Evidence could show patterns of abuse and support defense theory via expert testimony.	Motions in limine restricted such cross-examination; evidence would be admissible if properly framed.	Greenlee failed to provide record of motions; point denied for lack of reviewable record.
Coercion of jury / one-day trial	Trial was compressed to one day and court allegedly pressured jurors to hurry verdict.	No coercion; no manifest injustice; defense failed to object or demonstrate coercive effect.	No coercion; point denied on plain-error review.

Key Cases Cited

Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1961) (pretrial publicity and juror impartiality)
State v. Johns, 34 S.W.3d 93 (Mo. banc 2000) (publicity not require juror ignorance; assessing impact on venire)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (speedy-trial balancing framework)
State ex rel. Garcia v. Goldman, 316 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. banc 2010) (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial rights; Barker framework context)
State ex rel. McKee v. Riley, 240 S.W.3d 720 (Mo. banc 2007) (speedy-trial balancing; docket and delay considerations)
State v. Bell, 66 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001) (docket delays weighed against State; cautious evaluation of delays)
Drudge, 296 S.W.3d 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (pretrial delay prejudice considerations)
Farris, 877 S.W.2d 657 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994) (delay attributable to defendant weighs against claim)
Joos, 966 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (pretrial anxiety; prejudice requirements)
Knifong, 53 S.W.3d 188 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (preservation of constitutional challenges)
Myers, 989 S.W.2d 594 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (preservation requirements for instruction challenges)
Messer, 207 S.W.3d 671 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (credibility and standard for sufficiency review)