State v. Thompson, 341 S.W.3d 723

Clarence Thompson was convicted by a jury of three counts of statutory rape and one count of statutory sodomy.
Victim, E.C., was twelve years old at the time of the charged offenses and lived with Thompson as her godfather.
Thompson allegedly began abusing Victim in Arkansas when she was about nine and progressed to rape in various locations including Arkansas, an Oak Grove Inn in Missouri, and a basement room with Victim’s family.
Forensic testing matched semen from Victim’s rape kit to Thompson’s genetic profile, supporting the charges.
K.C., Victim’s brother, testified about observing Thompson humping Victim in Arkansas; the State sought to admit K.C.’s deposition under Section 491.075.
Thompson challenged several evidentiary rulings at trial, including admissibility of deposition testimony, uncharged-state acts, and Victim’s videotaped and hearsay statements; the trial court ruled on these issues and the jury verdict followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of K.C.'s deposition under 491.075	Deposition lacked reliability; bolstering of K.C.'s testimony.	Trial court abused discretion admitting deposition.	No abuse; deposition admitted properly.
Conflict between 491.075 and Rule 25.16	Plain error review warranted due to conflict.	Rule preempts; error not preserved for review.	No manifest injustice; plain error review denied.
Admission of uncharged Arkansas acts and cross-exam on false accusations	Prior acts relevant to motive and credibility.	Uncharged acts and impeachment evidence improperly prejudicial.	Prior acts admissible; exclusion of extrinsic impeachment evidence not error.
Admission of Victim's videotaped statements and hearsay under 492.304 and 491.075	Victim under 14 when statements were made; admissible.	Age at trial irrelevant; strict adherence to statutes required.	Statutes satisfied; admission proper.

State v. Redman, 916 S.W.2d 787 (Mo. banc 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for admitting child statements)
In re N.J.K. v. Juvenile Officer, 139 S.W.3d 250 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (totality of circumstances for reliability factors)
State v. Sheridan, 188 S.W.3d 55 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (reliability of statements; corroboration with CAC interview)
State v. Gaines, 316 S.W.3d 440 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (bolstering; limitations on admitting deposition testimony)
State v. Thurman, 272 S.W.3d 489 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (admissibility of prior sexual misconduct to show motive/intent)
State v. Uptegrove, 330 S.W.3d 586 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (prior misconduct admissible for non-propensity purposes)
State v. Winfrey, 337 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2011) (limitations on impeachment by prior dishonest statements)
State v. Long, 140 S.W.3d 27 (Mo. banc 2004) (prior false allegations as impeachment under certain conditions)
Mattic, 84 S.W.3d 161 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (age thresholds and admissibility of child statements)
Bracken, 333 S.W.3d 48 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (probative value vs. prejudice in admissibility of impeachment evidence)
State v. Norman, 145 S.W.3d 912 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Ridenour, 334 S.W.3d 724 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (unfounded agency determinations do not prove truth of prior allegations)
Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (plain error standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)