State v. Ray
407 S.W.3d 162
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ray was convicted in a bench trial of first-degree statutory rape, two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, and incest arising from acts against his daughter Victim J.J. between Jan 1, 2009 and May 1, 2010.
- Victim described in- home assaults where Ray allegedly on top of her, pulled clothes down, and engaged in genital contact; Victim reported stimulation and oral contact.
- Medical and forensic evidence included Dr. Julie McManemy’s exam with minimal physical findings and Victim’s statements to Patten (pediatric social worker) and Tucker (forensic interviewer).
- Forensic interviews and testimony indicated Victim described Ray placing his penis inside Victim’s buttocks and mouth; Victim demonstrated positions with a doll in Tucker’s interview.
- The trial court sentenced Ray to concurrent terms totaling 25 years for rape and sodomy counts and 4 years for incest; Ray appeals challenging sufficiency of the sodomy counts and the admissibility of Dr. McManemy’s testimony.
- The opinion affirms the convictions and addresses sufficiency of evidence for counts II and III and the admissibility/impact of Dr. McManemy’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count II sodomy | Ray argues insufficient evidence that he committed deviate sexual intercourse. | Ray contends the State failed to prove touching Victim’s anus with his penis. | Count II supported by testimonial inferences linking buttocks to anus contact. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count III sodomy by tongue | Victim’s out-of-court statements and corroboration support the charge. | Victim did not testify to tongue contact; insufficiency. | Yes; §491.075 statements may constitute substantial evidence; trial evidence adequate. |
| Admission of Dr. McManemy’s testimony | Dr. McManemy’s diagnosis bolstered Victim’s credibility. | Elicited by Ray on cross-examination; may be plain error. | No plain error; testimony was general, not an improper credibility ruling, and was invited by defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tolen, 295 S.W.3d 883 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009) (evidence may support inferring contact with anus from buttocks)
- State v. O’Neal, 651 S.W.2d 634 (Mo.App.S.D. 1983) (young victims’ language may describe anatomy; inference allowed)
- State v. Benwire, 98 S.W.3d 618 (Mo.App.W.D. 2003) (section 491.075 statements can be substantive evidence)
- State v. Churchill, 98 S.W.3d 536 (Mo. Banc. 2003) (two types of expert testimony; general vs. particularized; bolstering concerns)
- State v. Haslett, 283 S.W.3d 769 (Mo.App.S.D. 2009) (expert opinion on ultimate issue admissible if not vouching for credibility)