State v. Wadel, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 523

Wadel appeals his convictions for two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, one count of first-degree statutory rape, and two counts of first-degree child endangerment.
Victims are A.W. (b. 2005) and C.W. (b. 2004); allegations arose from Wadel living with guardians Sue and Dave Wadel and later with his girlfriend Stephanie Hobbs.
The state introduced out-of-court statements by the victims, along with other corroborating and documentary evidence, to prove the offenses despite trial recantations.
The trial court denied defense motions for judgment of acquittal; the jury found Wadel guilty on all counts.
Wadel challenges sufficiency of the evidence and asserts plain-error instructional defects on the child-endangerment verdict directors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence where victims recanted	State	Wadel	Convictions affirmed; evidence sufficient despite recantations
Plain-error instructional adequacy for endangerment verdict directors	State	Wadel	Error not prejudicial; no manifest injustice despite defective instructions

State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2012) (standard for sufficiency review; great deference to jury)
State v. Peters, 186 S.W.3d 774 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (corroboration vs. destructive contradictions in sexual-offense cases)
State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662 (Mo. banc 1995) (inconsistencies do not alone negate credibility; corroboration rule limited)
State v. Uptegrove, 330 S.W.3d 586 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (destructive contradictions doctrine; limited application)
State v. Pierce, 906 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (recanted out-of-court statement not per se requiring corroboration)
State ex rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. banc 2003) (section 491.074 and admissibility of prior inconsistent statements)
State v. Clay, 909 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (endangerment by substantial risk; causal connection to acts)