State v. Hitchcock, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 26

Hitchcock was convicted of second degree murder and armed criminal action for killing Wendell Hillhouse with a rifle and a baseball bat; he was sentenced as a prior offender to 25 years on the murder count and 10 years on the armed action count.
Evidence at trial included testimony about Hitchcock’s alleged prior abusive conduct toward June Hitchcock and a violent incident involving June’s family member, offered to show propensity and explain credibility.
June Hitchcock, Hitchcock’s ex-wife, testified about the relationship and fear of Hitchcock; she eventually reported the murder to authorities after fearing for her daughter and grandchild.
A defense expert, Gene Gietzen, offered a crime-scene reconstruction theory to challenge June’s account, which the court limited and ultimately did not permit in certain aspects.
The court allowed some prior conduct evidence and limited others; Hitchcock challenged the admission of certain prior-bad-acts testimony as well as the exclusion of parts of Gietzen’s testimony; the appellate court affirmed denial of these claims.
The Southern District affirmed, holding the challenged evidentiary rulings were not plain error and did not prejudice Hitchcock’s substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Mr. Smith's testimony about prior acts	Hitchcock argues Mr. Smith’s testimony about abuse is inadmissible bad acts to prove propensity.	Hitchcock contends the testimony inflamed passions and was not properly tied to any exception.	Not plain error; testimony did not amount to improper propensity evidence.
Admission of June's testimony about prior acts	The State argues the testimony explains why June delayed reporting the murder and is admissible to rebut credibility.	Hitchcock contends the testimony is unfairly prejudicial bad acts evidence.	Abuse/stalking testimony admissible to explain reporting delay; no abuse of discretion.
Exclusion of certain expert testimony by Gietzen	Gietzen’s eksperttestimony should have been allowed to retract June’s version of events.	Gietzen’s opinions invadethejury’s province and were improperly admitted or excluded.	Court did not abuse discretion; allowed admissible aspects and properly excluded others.
Overall handling of prior acts and expert evidence	State contends evidentiary rulings were proper and necessary to explain credibility and consistency.	Defendant maintains the rulings improperly favored the State and prejudiced defense.	Rulings not reversible error; no miscarriage of justice.

State v. Herrick, 814 S.W.2d 660 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991) (preservation issues for bad-act evidence; relevance objections insufficient)
State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc 1999) (prior misconduct admissible to explain witness delay; credibility impact)
State v. Watson, 968 S.W.2d 249 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (distinguishes invited-error scenarios from improper admission)
State v. Milligan, 654 S.W.2d 204 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983) (distinguishes admitted bad acts not on propensity grounds)
State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220 (Mo. App. S.D. 1987) (opening statement may open door to otherwise inadmissible evidence)
State v. Spivey, 710 S.W.2d 295 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (distinguishes when bad acts evidence is waived or properly admitted)
State v. Engleman, 653 S.W.2d 198 (Mo. banc 1983) (recognizes exceptions for admissibility of prior misconduct evidence)