State v. Ridenour
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 306
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Kenneth L. Ridenour was convicted of one count of use of a child in a sexual performance, a class C felony, and sentenced to three years in DOC.
- Victim, age nine, disclosed abuse by Appellant during a CAC interview after initial hotline contact.
- Evidence at trial included Victim's testimony and the testimony of a counselor and a therapist, with an offer of proof concerning Victim's prior allegations against her foster family.
- Defense sought to admit records from the Children's Division (Exhibit #1) and testimony about Victim's prior false allegations to impeach credibility and challenge the counselor’s testimony.
- Trial court excluded Exhibit #1 and related testimony as collateral and not sufficiently probative to outweigh prejudice.
- Appellant appeals arguing the exclusion violated his rights and impaired his defense; the appellate court affirms the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trial court proper in excluding extrinsic evidence of Victim's prior allegations against her foster family to impeach credibility? | Ridenour argues the evidence was probative of Victim's veracity. | State contends the evidence was collateral and not sufficiently probative. | No reversible error; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Did excluding Schnedlar's testimony and Exhibit #1 prejudice Appellant's case? | Ridenour contends exclusion prevented relevant impeachment. | State maintains testimony was collateral and evidence was cumulative. | No reversible prejudice; even if error occurred, not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Kardesch, 313 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. banc 2010) (balancing test for admissibility of extrinsic evidence in impeachment)
- State v. Long, 140 S.W.3d 27 (Mo. banc 2004) (collateral vs central issue in credibility evidence)
- State v. Wolfe, 13 S.W.3d 248 (Mo. banc 2000) (overruled by Mitchell regarding extrinsic impeachment evidence)
- State v. Freeman, 212 S.W.3d 173 (Mo.App.2007) (reversal requires prejudice; evidentiary error must affect merits)
- State v. Driscoll, 55 S.W.3d 350 (Mo. banc 2001) (relevance and balancing in admissibility of evidence)
- State v. Bernard, 849 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. banc 1993) (relevance/prejudice standard for evidence)
- State v. Norman, 145 S.W.3d 912 (Mo.App.2004) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and inferences in conviction)