State v. Rose, 421 S.W.3d 522

Defendant Paul Ray Rose was convicted of one count of first-degree statutory sodomy involving Victim, who was 12 years old in summer 2010.
Victim testified that Rose put his fingers inside her vagina during multiple incidents in the home, describing over twenty occasions and other touching incidents.
Victim disclosed the abuse to her mother after a slumber party, leading to authorities’ involvement and trial.
Defendant appeals raising five points, including sufficiency of the evidence, cross-examination restrictions, an allegedly deficient verdict director, improper cross-examination of a character witness, and absence of a plea-offer-record.
The evidence showed Victim’s age and conduct; the jury found him guilty; the appellate court affirmed after evaluating preservation and plain-error considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Rose argues circumstantial/inconsistent evidence undermines guilt.	Rose contends evidence is insufficient to prove statutory sodomy beyond a reasonable doubt.	Evidence sufficient; victim testimony supports conviction.
Cross-examination about prior false allegations	State argues lack of preservation; Victim’s prior allegations were not false.	Rose contends trial court barred cross-examination of alleged prior false allegations.	Not preserved for review; point denied.
Instruction 5 and unanimity	Instruction failed to specify conduct and to ensure unanimity in a multiple-acts case.	Celis-Garcia requires specificity or election of acts; error exists but plain error review applies.	Instruction 5 did not ensure unanimous verdict; plain-error review denied because no manifest injustice given defense strategy.
Cross-examination of defendant's character witness	State adequately tested reputation with prior investigations/acts.	Questions about prior bad acts were improperly phrased or outside scope.	Not preserved; point denied.
Record of plea offer	Frye requires record-keeping of plea discussions only when offers are accepted; not required here.	Trial court should have recorded rejection/ramifications per Frye.	No error; Frye does not require a plea-offer record when offers are rejected.

State v. Paulson, 220 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Bewley, 68 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (evidentiary review framework for sufficiency)
State v. Wright, 382 S.W.3d 902 (Mo. banc 2012) (deference to trier of fact; credibility not reweighed on appeal)
State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2012) (credibility/weight of evidence on appeal)
State v. Peeples, 288 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (elements proof in criminal case)
State v. Robertson, 396 S.W.3d 475 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (victim testimony alone can support sexual offense conviction)
State v. Anderson, 348 S.W.3d 840 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (victim testimony sufficiency despite collateral conflicts)
State v. LeSieur, 361 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (unitary defense strategy in multiple acts cases)
State v. Johnson, 62 S.W.3d 61 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (factors in multiple-acts case analysis)
Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011) (unanimity requirement in multiple acts cases; describe acts or election)
Ralston, 400 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (plain-error analysis framework)
Dean, 382 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (plain-error standard involves actual impact on verdict)
Tisius, 362 S.W.3d 398 (Mo. banc 2012) (plain-error standard for instructional error)