State v. Quick
334 S.W.3d 603
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Sean Quick was charged with one count of felony promotion of child pornography in the first degree and two counts of felony possession of child pornography.
- He moved to suppress statements to police urging Miranda suppression; the court denied the motion, ruling he was not in custody.
- Evidence at trial showed detectives visited Quick at his Boone County apartment without a warrant to discuss the matter and obtained his consent to search.
- Police used a thumbnail-detecting program and later seized the computer; Captain Richardson testified about two exhibits depicting child pornography.
- Exhibits 16 and 17 were admitted and published to the jury over defense objections; the defense presented an expert on file-sharing.
- Quick was convicted on all counts and sentenced to eight years (Count I) and four years (Count II) to run concurrently; he appealed challenging evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion admitting the videos. | Quick; Exhibit 16 inflammatory and prejudicial. | State; videos are highly probative and probative value outweighs prejudice. | No abuse; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Whether Quick was subjected to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. | Quick; statements were obtained in custody during a formal interrogation. | State; interview was non-custodial, voluntary cooperation. | Not in custody; interview was voluntary and not custodial. |
| Whether the jury Instructions permitted a lesser mental-state (aware) than knowledge. | Quick; 'aware' lowers the required knowledge. | State; 'aware' and 'knew' are legally equivalent per MAI-CR notes. | Instructions properly conformed to law; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 318 S.W.3d 618 (Mo. banc 2010) (graphic evidence admissible when highly probative despite gruesome nature)
- State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. banc 2009) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings; standard of review abuse of discretion)
- State v. Anderson, 76 S.W.3d 275 (Mo. banc 2002) (logically and legally relevant evidence test; MAI-CR framework)
- State v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392 (Mo. banc 1987) (photograph admissibility when not rendered inadmissible by stipulations)
- State v. Hill, 247 S.W.3d 34 (Mo. App. 2008) (totality of circumstances in custody analysis)
- Brooks v. State, 185 S.W.3d 265 (Mo. App. 2006) (custody analysis when voluntary interview transitions to custodial)