State v. SCHALLON
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 704
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Schallon was indicted in 2007 on multiple counts of sexual offenses against his stepdaughter, Victim, including forcible sodomy, forcible rape, statutory sodomy, and sexual misconduct; trial jury found him guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to various concurrent and consecutive terms; on appeal, Schallon challenges points regarding discovery, sufficiency of evidence for Count 15, double jeopardy for Counts 21 and 26, and an improper sentence on Count 20; Victim testified to years of abuse beginning when she was eight and culminating around age sixteen; Victim also testified about an undisclosed inculpatory statement by Schallon during a confrontation; the State concedes error on Points II, III, and IV; the appellate court affirms in part and reverses in part.
- The trial court admitted Victim’s testimony about a statement Schallon allegedly made, despite non-disclosure; the court instructed the jury to disregard, and denied mistrial; Schallon’s police confession and a letter of apology corroborate the abuse evidence; the State’s discovery violation was deemed cumulative and not prejudicial; Count 15 (forcible sodomy) lacked sufficient evidence as charged; Counts 21 and 26 were based on the same incident; Count 20 was improperly sentenced as a completed offense rather than an attempted offense; the court vacates Count 15, remands to vacate one of Counts 21 or 26, and corrects Count 20 sentencing;},
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial denial for undisclosed statement | Schallon argues mistrial needed due to undisclosed inculpatory statement | State argues no prejudice; sanction appropriate | No abuse of discretion; no prejudice |
| Sufficiency for Count 15 (forcible sodomy) | Evidence insufficient to prove act of sodomy as charged | State contends sufficient evidence | Count 15 vacated; insufficient evidence |
| Double jeopardy for Counts 21 and 26 | Counts 21 and 26 stem from same incident; issue preserved for plain error | State concedes error | Remand to vacate one of the counts (plain-error, sustained) |
| Sentence on Count 20 (attempted statutory sodomy) | Sentence exceeded statutory maximum for Class D felony | State concedes error | Plain error; vacate/adjust sentencing to comply with law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wallace, 43 S.W.3d 398 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001) (discretion to impose sanctions for discovery violations; prejudice required to overturn)
- State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. banc 2003) (cumulative undisclosed statements not prejudicial if corroborated)
- State v. Armstrong, 863 S.W.2d 374 (Mo.App. E.D. 1993) (where act constituting crime is charged, proof of that act required)
- State v. Horton, 325 S.W.3d 474 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (double jeopardy when same event proves two offenses)
- State v. Burns, 877 S.W.2d 111 (Mo. banc 1994) (double jeopardy; elements and proof alignment)
- State v. Hawkins, 308 S.W.3d 776 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (unauthorized sentence; plain-error review)
- Dudley v. State, 903 S.W.2d 263 (Mo.App. E.D. 1995) (due process limits on punishment)
- Drennen v. State, 906 S.W.2d 880 (Mo.App. E.D. 1995) (unauthorized sentence affects substantial rights)
- State v. Burns, 877 S.W.2d 111 (Mo. banc 1994) (double jeopardy; elements and proof alignment)