State v. Sapien
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 214
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sapien was convicted of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy involving his sister and step-brother.
- Juvenile records were introduced during sentencing and related to a 2004 rape of M.T. by Sapien.
- The State amended charges from child molestation to statutory sodomy after offering Sapien a plea deal.
- Sapien moved to dismiss the amended information as vindictive prosecution, which was denied.
- During guilt phase, the State elicited limited testimony about an uncharged rape to explain the victim’s delayed reporting; the court allowed redirect evidence.
- In sentencing, the court admitted juvenile disposition records, and M.T. testified about the earlier rape, over Sapien’s objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of uncharged-crime testimony was prejudicial | Sapien argues the M.T. rape testimony was unduly prejudicial | State contends opened-door exception justified admission to explain delay | Not reversible prejudice; admission not outcome-determinative |
| Whether juvenile records could be used in sentencing | Sapien contends §211.271.3 bars juvenile records in sentencing | State argues §211.321.2(2) permits public access of disposition records for felonies | §211.321.2(2) supersedes §211.271.3; records admissible in sentencing |
| Whether filing enhanced charges violated prosecutorial vindictiveness | Sapien asserts presumption or actual vindictiveness for enhanced charges | State asserts plea-bargaining context permits enhanced charges without vindictiveness | No presumption or vindictiveness; charges premised on plea dynamics allowed by Supreme Court precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978) (prosecution may use enhanced charges to induce guilty pleas if justified by probable cause)
- Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1982) (distinction between initial vs. post-negotiation charges is not a constitutional difference)
- Potts, 181 S.W.3d 228 (Mo. App. 2005) (presumption of vindictiveness generally not applied in pretrial settings)
- Barriner, 34 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. banc 2000) (factors for prejudicial effect of uncharged-evidence; reversal depended on factors like similarity and extent of use)
- Chism, 252 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. 2008) (prejudice standard for error in admission of uncharged misconduct)
- Massey, 763 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. App. 1988) (vindictiveness, caution against pretrial presumptions)
- Vorhees, 248 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. banc 2008) (constitutional protections regarding trial for the offense charged)