State v. Hawkins
328 S.W.3d 799
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Hawkins was convicted of sodomy under §566.060 and sentenced to 15 years; appeal followed.
- Victim, Hawkins's daughter, described repeated molestation by Hawkins beginning when she was 7–14 years old.
- Victim disclosed abuse at CAC; Lakeland medical records contained denials of prior abuse and were subject to privilege protections.
- The trial court allowed disclosure of two statements from Lakeland records; other parts remained sealed, and defense could not personally review the entire records.
- Prosecutor argued Victim's testimony was uncontradicted; Hawkins challenged discovery, cross-examination limits, and the use of Victim’s disclosures and closing arguments; the court denied relief, and Hawkins was ultimately affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the failure to permit complete access to Lakeland records deny meaningful discovery? | Hawkins argues denial of full Lakeland records access impaired discovery. | State contends disclosure limits were appropriate and records were largely cumulative. | No fundamental unfairness; no abuse of discretion. |
| Was Hawkins's cross-examination unduly limited to prevent meaningful cross-examination? | Hawkins contends cross-examination was improperly constrained. | State asserts trial court allowed broad cross-examination and reviewed records for relevance. | Not unduly limited; cross-examination sufficient. |
| Did Victim’s testimony about the initial disclosure link Hawkins to an uncharged crime? | Victim’s disclosures to police show nexus to another alleged offense by Hawkins. | Testimony did not clearly identify Hawkins as perpetrator of the unidentified teen. | No clear nexus; no evidence of other crimes established. |
| Were closing arguments improperly commenting on Hawkins's Fifth Amendment rights? | Prosecutor allegedly labeled evidence uncontradicted to imply failure to testify. | Comments did not directly or indirectly reference Hawkins's failure to testify. | No plain error; arguments not prohibited under rule. |
| Was there sufficient corroboration to sustain a sodomy conviction? | Victim’s uncorroborated testimony may be insufficient due to corroboration rule. | Corroboration rule applies only to internal inconsistencies in trial testimony; not applicable here. | Victim's testimony alone supported the conviction; no corroboration required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings in sexual offense cases; abuse of discretion avoided)
- State v. Taylor, 944 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. banc 1997) (cross-examination breadth and discovery limits; confrontation rights)
- State v. DeClue, 128 S.W.3d 864 (Mo.App. S.D.2004) (limits on cross-examination to address prejudice and relevance)
- State v. Koenig, 115 S.W.3d 408 (Mo. App. S.D.2003) (privilege protections vs. discovery; in camera review authority)
- State v. Paxton, 140 S.W.3d 226 (Mo. App. S.D.2004) (corroboration rule in sexual offense cases; victim’s testimony sufficiency)