State v. Mateo
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 164
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mateo was convicted on three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, three counts of abuse of a child, and one count of first-degree assault arising from injuries to TB, the child of Mateo's girlfriend.
- Mateo challenged the custodial interrogation statements as violative of self-incrimination, counsel, and due process rights, and challenged the admissibility of unsworn testimony from the minor victim.
- TB, aged three at the time, sustained extensive injuries after being in Mateo's care; medical testimony linked burns and other injuries to abuse, not a single fall.
- TB's injuries were examined by a pediatrician who described patterns consistent with punching, grabbing, and hot-water burns, and inconsistent with Mateo's stated fall.
- TB and his mother were interviewed; detectives later questioned Mateo in custody, administering Miranda warnings; Mateo made incriminating statements.
- The trial court overruled Mateo's suppression motion; Mateo was convicted and sentenced to concurrent terms, including 12 years for the assault and seven years for other counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the custodial statements were properly admitted | Mateo | Mateo | Waiver and Miranda rights upheld; statements admissible |
| Whether unsworn testimony from the child victim was properly admitted | Mateo | Mateo | Plain error review denied; testimony admissible under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (clear invocation requires cessation of questioning)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (right to counsel invoked requires stopping interrogation)
- Bucklew, 973 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. banc 1998) (equivocal requests for counsel must be clear before cessation)
- Nicklasson, 967 S.W.2d 596 (Mo. banc 1998) (clarification questions about rights are not definitive requests for counsel)
- Williams, 729 S.W.2d 197 (Mo. banc 1987) (1984 amendment to 491.060(2) makes child-victim testimony competent without further qualification)
- Patterson, 569 S.W.2d 266 (Mo. App. 1978) (oath not prerequisite; understanding of truth suffices)
- Kovacs, 869 S.W.2d 789 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (oath purpose shown by witness understanding of truth)
- Uelentrup, 910 S.W.2d 718 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (unsworn testimony of child witnesses examined for prejudice)