State v. Sprofera, 372 S.W.3d 17

Appellant and wife adopted B.S. in 1998; they also adopted B.S.’s brother T.S. with special needs.
In Feb. 2008, during B.S.’s medical exam, B.S. was found to be pregnant and initially claimed T.S. was the father; pregnancy was aborted.
In 2009 Appellant and wife separated; B.S. told her mother and later authorities that Appellant sexually abused her and impregnated her.
On Jan. 19, 2010 Appellant was indicted for one count of statutory rape in the second degree; he was tried by jury and convicted.
Trial court sentenced Appellant to seven years’ imprisonment in Nov. 2010; Appellant appealed raising four points challenging admissibility and procedure.
The majority affirming the conviction discusses the admissibility of prior sexual misconduct and other conduct, and concludes the challenged evidence was properly admitted or not reversible error.
Dissent argues the evidence was prejudicial and warrants new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior sexual misconduct evidence	Sprofera argues it shows propensity and should be excluded	Sprofera contends it is probative of motive/intent and part of the conduct surrounding the offense	Court held the evidence was probative and its prejudicial effect outweighed; allegation denied
Admission of testimony about broken mirror incident	Sprofera argues it is uncharged misconduct and prejudicial	Sprofera argues it explains delay in reporting; probative value outweighs prejudice	Court held probative value outweighed prejudice; admission not reversible error
Admission of Detective Swearingin’s testimony about agitation/profanity	Sprofera argues it was uncharged bad acts not relevant	State contends it provided narrative of arrest events	Court held admissible as surrounding arrest evidence; no reversible error
Cross-examination profanity toward prosecutor	Sprofera argues irrelevant and prejudicial	State contends relevance to impeach credibility	Court held it was irrelevant to elements; error not enough to reverse; generally improper but not reversible

State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (admissibility standard; appellate review for prejudice; probative outweighs prejudicial value)
State v. Davis, 226 S.W.3d 167 (Mo. App. W.D.2007) (evidence of uncharged misconduct admissible when relevant and non-propensity)
State v. Uptegrove, 330 S.W.3d 586 (Mo. App. W.D.2011) (prior misconduct admissible for motive/intent; part of surrounding circumstances)
Primm v. State, 347 S.W.3d 66 (Mo. banc 2011) (unclear; admissibility to present complete picture of events)
State v. Hitchcock, 329 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. App. S.D.2011) (timing and context of testimony regarding violence; distinguishable facts)
State v. Ondo, 232 S.W.3d 622 (Mo. App. S.D.2007) (circumstances surrounding arrest admissible; timing matters)
State v. Perdue, 317 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (plain error standard; preservation concerns)