420 S.W.3d 632
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Mason was convicted of first-degree statutory rape, first-degree statutory sodomy, and first-degree child molestation.
- Victim was about eleven when acts occurred; Defendant lived with Victim, her mother, and two siblings.
- Victim disclosed alleged abuse in 2008 and 2010, leading to investigations and CAC interviews; SAFE exam later showed signs of abuse.
- Defendant was interviewed by a sergeant; he invoked or contemplated invoking the right to counsel during the interview.
- Video of the interview and related testimony were admitted over objections; Defendant moved for mistrial, which was denied.
- Appeals court affirms conviction, rejecting claims of prejudicial Doyle-v.-Ohio error and improper admission of the video and testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doyle error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | State argues isolated Doyle issue; no repeated references by State | Mistrial denied; testimony and video improperly implied guilt | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; judgment affirmed |
| Whether videotape and testimony violated right to counsel | Video and testimony challenged as improper use of request for attorney | Invocation of counsel should bar admission of related statements | Admissible; not reversible error |
| Whether denial of mistrial was reversible error | State relied on overwhelming evidence of guilt | Mistrial warranted due to Doyle error | Not reversible; overwhelming evidence supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (post-arrest silence may not be used to impeach testimony or guilt)
- State v. Whitmore, 948 S.W.2d 643 (Mo.App.W.D.1997) (silence includes request for counsel; not admissible to incriminate)
- State v. Pulis, 822 S.W.2d 541 (Mo.App.S.D.1992) (waiver of rights allows comment on statements while in custody)
- State v. Dexter, 954 S.W.2d 332 (Mo.banc 1997) (harmless Doyle violations analyzed with factors; overall impact small)
- State v. Frazier, 927 S.W.2d 378 (Mo.App.W.D.1996) (remarks about termination of interrogation must not imply guilt)
- State v. Ervin, 398 S.W.3d 95 (Mo.App.S.D.2013) (curative actions considered in Doyle analysis)
- State v. Brooks, 304 S.W.3d 130 (Mo.banc 2010) (harmless-error standard for Doyle violations)