State v. Tindle, 395 S.W.3d 56

Defendant Darrell D. Tindle was charged with two counts of first-degree child molestation and three counts of statutory sodomy arising from alleged sexual contact with two minor children, A.T. and D.A.
Jury acquitted on one count of child molestation regarding D.A. and convicted on three counts involving A.T. (one first-degree sodomy, two second-degree sodomy).
Defendant waived jury sentencing; trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 20 years for first-degree sodomy and 7 years on each second-degree sodomy conviction.
State sought to admit CAC interviews (State's Exhibit 2 and 3) of A.T. and related deposition-like testimony under Missouri statutes 491.075 and 492.304; objections were raised and ruled on during trial.
Defendant challenged the CAC interview and Officer Baker’s testimony as improperly admitted hearsay, bolstering, deposition misuse, and violation of confrontation, but the trial court admitted them; the conviction and sentences followed.
Appellate review focuses on preservation of objections, admissibility under 491.075, and whether admission caused prejudice; the court ultimately affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAC interview admission complies with 491.075	Tindle asserts error in admitting CAC interview not under hearsay exception for under-14 age.	Tindle contends age at interview should bar admissibility and constitute prejudice.	Admission affirmed; no reversible prejudice; indicia of reliability supports admission.
Whether CAC interview should be excluded as hearsay under 492.304	CAC interview does not fit 492.304 exceptions; it is hearsay evidence.	Interviews are admissible under 492.304 as registered visual/auditory recordings.	No basis to admit under 492.304; still harmless due to other evidence and cross-examination.
Whether Officer Baker testimony under 491.075 was properly admitted	Baker’s testimony falls within 491.075 as reliably recorded statements.	A.T. was over 14; thus not admissible under 491.075 and prejudicial.	Admission affirmed; not prejudicial given corroboration and cross-examination.
Whether admission violated confrontation clause or bolstering	Evidence was properly reliable and cross-examined; not improper bolstering.	Statements improperly bolster and circumvent confrontation rights.	No reversible error; statements not unduly prejudicial beyond trial evidence.
Whether objections were properly preserved for appellate review	Defendant preserved objections at trial and on motion for new trial.	Some grounds were not properly preserved or framed at trial.	Most points preserved; remaining issues decline; affirmed judgment.

State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. banc 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Gonzales, 153 S.W.3d 311 (Mo. banc 2005) (presumption of correctness for discretionary rulings)
State v. Hatch, 54 S.W.3d 623 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (preservation and timeliness of objections governs review)
State v. Manes, 961 S.W.2d 889 (Mo.App. S.D.1998) (preservation of evidentiary objections required)
State v. Schuster, 92 S.W.3d 816 (Mo.App. S.D.2003) (Section 491.075 hearing requirements when no prior objection)
State v. Sutherland, 939 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. banc 1997) (definition and limits of hearsay)
State v. Steele, 314 S.W.3d 845 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (hearsay conformity and cumulativeness doctrine)
State v. Atkeson, 255 S.W.3d 8 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (prejudice arising from cumulative or corroborative evidence)
State v. Harrison, 213 S.W.3d 58 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (prejudice and admissibility of corroborative child statements)
State v. Shaffer, 251 S.W.3d 356 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (plain error review and outcome determinative standard)
State v. Clayton, 995 S.W.2d 468 (Mo.banc 1999) (plain error and discretionary review)