372 S.W.3d 549
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Johnson was convicted in a bench trial of four counts of possession of child pornography.
- He moved to suppress photographs and videos found on computers and data devices and challenged Sergeant Cordia’s testimony about his belief that the images were child pornography.
- Sergeant Cooper secured a search warrant after investigating a hotel-room incident in Columbia involving Johnson and underage boys.
- The warrant authorized seizure of electronic storage devices and related items; officers seized multiple computers, storage media, and sexual paraphernalia.
- Sergeant Cordia retrieved over 500 still images and about 20 videos from a computer; the court admitted 1–20 stills and 21, 23, 24 videos at trial.
- The trial court admitted the exhibits over defense objections, and Johnson was sentenced to seven years on one count and ten years on the other three counts, all concurrent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for the warrant | Johnson argues the affidavit failed to tie the alleged crime to possession of child porn. | Johnson contends lack of probable cause based on the warrant application. | Probable cause supported; warrant properly issued. |
| Admissibility of Sergeant Cordia’s belief testimony | Johnson argues Cordia’s belief that images were child pornography was irrelevant and prejudicial. | Cordia’s opinion was improperly admitted as testimony on guilt. | Admission not outcome-determinative; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rush, 160 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.App. S.D. 2005) (probable cause review is deferential to magistrate's initial decision)
- State v. Neher, 213 S.W.3d 44 (Mo. banc 2007) (review limited to four corners of the affidavit and supporting materials)
- United States v. Colbert, 605 F.3d 573 (8th Cir. 2010) (recognizes link between child molestation and possession of child pornography)
- State v. Castoe, 357 S.W.3d 305 (Mo.App. S.D. 2012) (evidence sufficient even with some potentially improper testimony when other evidence supports guilt)
- State v. Ernst, 164 S.W.3d 70 (Mo.App. S.D. 2005) (presumption trial judge was not prejudiced by inadmissible evidence unless shown otherwise)