State v. Lutes, 557 S.W.3d 384

Defendant Terry Lutes was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree child molestation for digitally penetrating his 6‑year‑old granddaughter and forcing her to masturbate him; he received consecutive 12‑year terms.
The State sought and the trial court admitted certified records of three earlier guilty pleas/convictions (1993, 1994, 2004) for sexual offenses against minor females under Missouri Const. art. I, § 18(c).
Defense counsel attempted a voir dire question referencing Lutes’s prior felony sex convictions; the court prohibited the exact question as phrased and counsel did not proffer an alternative formulation.
The child victim did not appear at the second trial because her custodial parent refused to bring her from Kansas; the trial court admitted the victim’s prior live testimony and other out‑of‑court statements after finding the State made good‑faith efforts under the Uniform Law to secure her attendance (witness unavailable).
Lutes raised three issues on appeal: (1) admission of prior convictions under § 18(c); (2) denial of the proposed voir dire question about juror impartiality given prior convictions; and (3) admission of the victim’s out‑of‑court and prior testimony as the witness was unavailable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior convictions under art. I, § 18(c)	Prior convictions corroborate victim and show propensity; logically and legally relevant	Prior convictions too remote and dissimilar; unfairly prejudicial	Court affirmed admission: convictions (10–21 years old) sufficiently similar and probative; limited, dispassionate presentation avoided unfair prejudice
Voir dire prohibition about prior convictions	N/A (State opposed and trial court limited questioning)	Counsel argued prospective jurors should be asked if they could be fair despite defendant’s prior sex convictions	Affirmed: proposed wording was misleading and legally imprecise; court not required to rephrase; no demonstrated real probability of prejudice
Admissibility of victim’s prior testimony/out‑of‑court statements (Confrontation/§ 491.075)	N/A	State argued it made good‑faith efforts under the Uniform Law to compel attendance; witness unavailable; prior testimony subject to earlier cross‑examination	Affirmed: trial court reasonably found State exercised reasonable diligence to secure attendance and that victim was unavailable; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause
Cumulative effect / need for new trial	N/A	Lutes argued cumulative prejudice warranted new trial	Denied: court found no reversible error given limited use and non‑inflammatory presentation of prior convictions and evidence of unavailability

State v. Prince, 534 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. banc 2017) (remoteness and similarity are fact‑specific under § 18(c); prior acts need only be similar, not identical)
State v. Williams, 548 S.W.3d 275 (Mo. banc 2018) (legal‑relevance balancing under § 18(c); limited, dispassionate presentation and jury awareness of convictions reduce unfair prejudice)
State v. Matson, 526 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (discusses effect of art. I, § 18(c) on propensity evidence in sexual‑minor prosecutions)
State v. Oates, 12 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. banc 2000) (trial court has discretion to control voir dire to avoid trying the case during jury selection)
State v. Irby, 254 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (Uniform Law compliance can show reasonable diligence to secure out‑of‑state witness attendance)
United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2016) (prior sexual abuse may be admissible when victims/acts are similar; illustrates remoteness analysis)