Baker v. Steele
| Decision Date | 10 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:15 CV 1262 CDP |
| Parties | ROBERT BAKER, Petitioner, v. TROY STEELE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This case comes before this Court on Robert Baker's amended pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 In 2010, a state jury convicted Baker of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy and six counts of first-degree child molestation. The trial court sentenced Baker to eight concurrent life sentences, one on each count. In his petition for habeas corpus, Baker asserts three grounds for relief. Baker's first and third grounds for relief are procedurally barred because he failed to raise them in conformity with the procedural requirements of the Missouri courts. Baker's remaining ground for relief is denied on the merits, because the Missouri Court of Appeals reasonably applied the proper federal standard in considering and denying that claim.Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, this Court will deny Baker's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Baker was convicted at trial of sexually abusing five minor girls with whom he shared a residence from 2007 to 2010. Because the five victims were minors both at the time of trial and when the abuse occurred, they will be identified here only by their initials. In descending age order, the girls are T.C., A.C., C.C., K.C., and A.B. At the time of trial, T.C. was 15 years old, A.C. was 13, twins C.C. and K.C. were 12, and A.B. was 10. (Tr. Transcr. at 345, 380, 414, 435, 466).
Before trial, the court held a hearing pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075 to decide whether to permit certain adult witnesses to testify at trial about conversations they had previously had with the juvenile victims, in which the victims disclosed Baker's sexual abuse. Section 491.075 allows for the admission of testimony concerning statements made by a child under the age of fourteen who has been the victim of a sexual crime, even though such testimony would ordinarily be considered inadmissible hearsay, so long as (1) the court holds a hearing and finds that the "time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability," and (2) the child witness either testifies in court, is unavailable to testify, or it is demonstrated that "testifying in court would be traumatic to the witness." J.M.G. v. Juvenile Officer, 304 S.W.3d 193, 196(Mo. Ct. App. 2009); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075(1). At the hearing, two social workers (Karen Gudic and Megan Marietta) and a forensic interviewer (Beverly Tucker) testified about interviews they had previously conducted with the victims in this case. (Tr. Transcr. 7-20, 35-93). The trial court concluded that all of the hearsay evidence presented at the hearing possessed sufficient indicia of reliability to be admitted at trial at trial under § 491.075. (Tr. Transcr. at 19, 144).
At trial, T.C. testified that she was 13 years old when Baker first touched her. (Tr. Transcr. at 371). She testified that Baker touched both her chest and her private part with his hand under her clothes. (Tr. Transcr. at 352-54, 362). T.C. also stated that Baker touched her chest "more than once," (Tr. Transcr. at 375-76), and that he touched her on "more than five" occasions in total. (Tr. Transcr. at 377).
A.C. testified that she was around 11 years old when Baker touched her. (Tr. Transcr. at 411). A.C. testified that on separate occasions Baker squeezed her genitals over her clothes and squeezed her breast underneath her bra. (Tr. Transcr. at 398-99, 394).
C.C. testified that Baker touched her "middle part" (i.e., her genitals) with his hands over her clothes. (Tr. Transcr. at 419-20). She also stated that he touched her five separate times, always over her clothing. (Tr. Transcr. at 422, 428).
K.C. testified that she once woke up in Baker's room and that he then prevented her from exiting by threatening to hit her with a belt. (Tr. Transcr. at 440-42). She stated that on that occasion Baker touched both her chest and genitals over her clothes, as well as her "behind." (Tr. Transcr. at 445-46). K.C. also testified that Baker touched her genitals under her clothes on a separate occasion. (Tr. Transcr. at 449-50).
The youngest victim, A.B., testified that Baker put his "middle part" between her legs, and that his "middle part" touched her "middle part." (Tr. Transcr. at 477-79). She said that his "middle part" went inside her private part "a little." (Tr. Transcr. at 492). She also stated that Baker put his finger inside of her "middle part," (Tr. Transcr. at 480-81), and that he twice touched her breast with his mouth. (Tr. Transcr. at 482-83).
Part of Baker's trial strategy was to cast doubt on the victims' credibility by highlighting inconsistencies between their statements at trial and their previous accounts of the abuse. For example, on cross-examination Baker's attorney suggested that T.C. had previously told a social worker that Baker touched her private part only once and no other times, (Tr. Transcr. at 372), that A.C. had previously stated Baker never touched her under her clothes, (Tr. Transcr. at 404), that C.C. had told a social worker Baker touched her only once, (Tr. Transcr. at 429), that K.C. told a social worker Baker had tried to touch her middle but neverdid, (Tr. Transcr. at 460-61), and that A.B. had told a social worker that Baker only ever touched her with his hands and mouth. (Tr. Transcr. at 496).
In an effort to explain the discrepancies in the girls' stories, the State offered the testimony of Megan Marietta, a social worker. The purpose of Marietta's testimony was to explain, in general terms, the process of disclosure for juvenile victims of sexual abuse, and how it might help explain why a juvenile sex abuse victim would alter her account of the abuse over time. When the State attempted to elicit this testimony, defense counsel objected and the following exchange ensued:
In its closing argument, the State used Marietta's testimony to argue that the process of disclosure could explain inconsistencies in the victims' accounts of their abuse:
First you heard from a Megan Marietta. . . . And she described through her training and through her experience that children go through this process of disclosure when it comes to sexual abuse. The first stage is denial, and so if you ask a child that's been abused right away what's happening, they might not tell you because that first stage of disclosure is the denial. The second one is tentative where they're tentatively - they're kind of going to tell a little bit that happens because they're not quite sure what the reaction's going to be. They're not sure how - who they're going to tell, what's going to happen, or if anything's going to change in their life. The third step is active disclosure where they're able to actually tell what happened to them fully. Fourth step [is] sometimes recanting. The children will recant often because of the reaction that happens after they've told, all right. If they're not in a comfortable...
To continue reading
Request your trial