State v. Peirano, 540 S.W.3d 523

Defendant (Peirano) was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree statutory sodomy and five counts of first-degree child molestation against his daughter (Victim) and adjudged a predatory sexual offender; sentenced to concurrent life terms.
Victim testified to repeated sexual assaults in 2010 and 2012 (shower assaults, skin-to-skin contact, touching of genitals and anus, feeling an erect penis); disclosure led to CAC and law enforcement involvement.
State introduced prior-act testimony from family members: an aunt (two incidents when defendant was 14–15 involving breast grabbing and pelvic contact) and a sister (repeated abuse from about age 9–17, including shower incidents, breast touching, and grinding), plus an ex-wife’s report of abuse of another young daughter.
Defense theory: the charged allegations were false; defendant moved to exclude the aunt and sister testimony as unfairly prejudicial and too remote in time; the trial court admitted most of that testimony after a pretrial hearing.
On appeal defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion admitting the prior-act propensity evidence because the conduct was too remote and occurred when he was a juvenile; the court rejected that claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior sexual-act testimony under Mo. Const. art. I, § 18(c) (propensity/corroboration)	State: prior acts are admissible to show propensity or corroborate victim; probative value outweighs prejudice given similarity and familial access	Peirano: prior acts were too remote (decades old) and juvenile-era conduct, so prejudicial and should have been excluded	Court affirmed admission: Prince controls; remoteness affects weight not admissibility; juvenile acts count; similarity and ongoing pattern made probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice

State v. Prince, 534 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. banc 2017) (prior sexual acts admissible under Article I, § 18(c); remoteness and juvenile status do not automatically bar admissibility)
State v. Primm, 347 S.W.3d 66 (Mo. banc 2011) (exceptions permitting otherwise inadmissible prior-crime evidence)
State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. banc 2010) (legal relevance balances probative value and unfair prejudice)
State v. Blurton, 484 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. banc 2016) (standard of review for admissibility is abuse of discretion)
State v. Vorhees, 248 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. banc 2008) (general rule excluding proof of separate crimes absent legitimate tendency to establish charged offense)
United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that gaps up to 20 years do not automatically render prior acts too remote)
United States v. Meacham, 115 F.3d 1488 (10th Cir. 1997) (prior-act similarity can overcome long temporal gaps)