405 S.W.3d 554
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- A.V. and Defendant had a six-year romantic relationship and lived together until May 2011 when she sought to end it.
- In May 2011 Defendant choked A.V. severely once, prompting her to move out and obtain a protective order later that day.
- On June 22, 2011, Defendant allegedly confronted A.V. at her new apartment, choking her, brandishing a knife, and threatening to kill her while wearing gloves.
- Defendant then coerced A.V. into oral sex to get him to leave, after which she contacted police and obtained an order of protection.
- Defendant gave a written statement and an interview to police in which he claimed he only intended to scare A.V. and denied intent to harm, contradicting A.V.’s account.
- Trial charged Defendant with burglary in the first degree (Count I), domestic assault in the second degree (Count II), forcible sodomy (Count III), and armed criminal action (Count IV); the jury acquitted Count I and convicted on Counts II–IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of May 2011 choking incidents | State used prior uncharged acts to show motive/intent | Evidence improper propensity and prejudicial | Plain-error review denied; evidence admissible for motive/intent/circumstantial completeness. |
| Whether Detective Pollman’s testimony was an impermissible expert opinion | Pollman testimony supported State theory of intent | No proper objection; any error non-prejudicial | No manifest injustice; testimony not expert opinion and not outcome-determinative. |
| Admission of two video-recorded interview portions with A.V. laughing | Laughter relevant to demeanor and impeachment | Excluded portions were relevant impeachment and demeanor | Even if abused, not prejudicial; no probability of different outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baldwin, 290 S.W.3d 139 (Mo.App.2009) (preservation via motion in limine; plain error analysis referenced)
- State v. Jordan, – (Mo.App.1998) (preservation principles for trial objections)
- State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2012) (limitations on admissibility of prior bad acts; purposes allowed)
- State v. Gilyard, 979 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. banc 1998) (prior bad acts admissible for non-propensity purposes)
- State v. Primm, 347 S.W.3d 66 (Mo. banc 2011) (establishes permissible uses of uncharged misconduct evidence)
- State v. Tolliver, 101 S.W.3d 313 (Mo.App.2002) (motive/intent/absence of mistake admissibility when at issue)
- State v. Smallwood, 230 S.W.3d 662 (Mo.App.2007) (plain error framework phased review)
- State v. Edwards, 280 S.W.3d 184 (Mo.App.2009) (preservation and review principles for evidentiary issues)
- State v. Stewart, 343 S.W.3d 373 (Mo.App.2011) (adult-abuse evidence; probative value in context)