State v. Wadlow
370 S.W.3d 315
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Wadlow appeals his conviction for one count of first-degree statutory sodomy; he was grandfather of five-year-old Victim.
- Victim disclosed to Head Start staff that Appellant touched her vagina and that he said, “I love you,” prompting a Children’s Division investigation.
- Victim was interviewed at CAC; multiple interviews and a SAFE exam showed findings consistent with abuse.
- Trial court ruled that Victim’s out-of-court statements could be admitted under §491.075 if certain reliability indicia existed, and admitted the CAC interview videotape.
- Victim testified briefly; Appellant did not testify; jury convicted and sentenced him to life; Wadlow appeals on alleged improper admission of statements and lack of sua sponte judicial intervention.
- Statutory background and standard of review for plain error were discussed, including two-prong plain-error analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Victim’s out-of-court statements under §491.075 | State argues statements had sufficient reliability and were admissible | Wadlow contends statements were unreliable and prejudicial under §491.075 | No plain error; admission affirmed |
| Trial court's failure to sua sponte intervene regarding Daugherty testimony | State asserts testimony supported Victim’s abuse, not improper bolstering | Wadlow contends trial court should have admonished/judicially curtailed testimony | No abuse of discretion; absence of evident, obvious error; point denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sprinkle, 122 S.W.3d 652 (Mo.App.2003) (totality-of-circumstances reliability factors for §491.075)
- State v. Redman, 916 S.W.2d 787 (Mo. banc 1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission rulings)
- State v. Haslett, 283 S.W.3d 769 (Mo.App.2009) (expert testimony on ultimate issues allowed if it aids jury)
- State v. Tyra, 153 S.W.3d 341 (Mo.App.2005) (admission of expert testimony in criminal cases governed by discretion)
- State v. Pickens, 332 S.W.3d 303 (Mo.App.2011) (expert testimony on veracity; limits on commentary on credibility)