State v. Hillman
2013 Mo. LEXIS 304
Mo.2013Background
- Defendant, 28, is Victim’s first cousin; Victim was 15 at the time of the offenses (Jan. 29, 2011).
- Defendant allegedly manipulated Victim into sexual acts after offering marijuana and alcohol and after Victim helped with his children.
- Defendant admitted kissing Victim, providing marijuana, and exposing himself during a police interview.
- A jury convicted Defendant of unlawful distribution to a minor and attempted second-degree statutory sodomy; sentences run consecutively for a total of nine years.
- Defendant began SOAU program under §559.115; appeal challenged transcript completeness, witness exclusion, suppression, and SOAU constitutionality.
- Court affirmed the judgment, with a concurrence in part/dissent in part addressing the witness exclusion sanction and potential prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transcript completeness admissibility | Hillman claims indiscernible sections prevent meaningful review | Record incomplete; missing testimony prejudicial | No automatic reversal; review limited by prejudice analysis |
| Exclusion of defense witnesses as discovery sanction | Sanction undue; witnesses crucial to defense | Late endorsements justified; non-disclosure harmed defense | No abuse of discretion; no fundamental unfairness shown |
| Failure to suppress evidence without a warrant | Warrantless marijuana seizure violated Fourth Amendment | Consent and ex post Miranda warnings negate illegality | Not preserved for appeal; plain error review applying; search admissible given consent |
| Constitutional validity of section 559.115 as applied | SOAU eligibility denied due to appeal; equal protection concerns | Appeal filing impeded participation; records show possible eligibility | Record supports continued SOAU participation despite appeal; no equal protection violation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shockley, 410 S.W.3d 179 (Mo. banc 2013) (incomplete record does not require automatic reversal; prejudice analysis)
- State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc 1999) (due diligence to correct record; stipulation possible)
- State v. Walkup, 220 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. banc 2007) (sanction for discovery violation reviewed for fundamental unfairness)
- State v. Hopper, 315 S.W.3d 361 (Mo.App.S.D.2010) (late endorsement; cumulative or unduly surprising testimony; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Harris, 664 S.W.2d 677 (Mo.App.E.D.1984) (alibi witnesses; timely disclosure critical)