Cooper v. Steele
| Decision Date | 17 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case no. 4:13cv01610 PLC |
| Parties | PATRICK R. COOPER, Petitioner, v. TROY STEELE and JOSH HAWLEY, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Petitioner Patrick R. Cooper seeks federal habeas relief from a Missouri state court judgment entered after a jury trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the petition.2
The State of Missouri charged Petitioner with committing: statutory rape in the first degree, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.032, between April 17, 2007 and April 16, 2008 (Count I); statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.062, between April 17, 2007 and October 15, 2008 (Counts II through V); and incest, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 568.020, between April 17, 2007 and October 15, 2008 (Count VI).3 Each of the six charged offenses occurred at the same location in St. Louis County, Missouri and involved one minor female ("Victim").4 With respect to the first-degree statutory rape (Count I), the State charged Petitioner "knowingly had sexual intercourse with [Victim], a child less than twelve years old."5 With regard to the four counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, the State charged that, "for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of [Petitioner] he had deviate sexual intercourse with [Victim], who was then a child less than fourteen years old," by placing: "his penis in [Victim]'s anus" (Count II), "his mouth on [Victim]'s genitals" (Count III), "his hand on [Victim]'s genitals (Count IV), and "[Victim]'s hand on his genitals" (Count V).6 For the incest offense, the State charged Petitioner "engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with [Victim] whom [Petitioner] knew to be his descendant by blood" (Count VI).7
Prior to trial, Petitioner filed a request for discovery seeking numerous items, including "the statements of all persons who have been interviewed by an agent of the State in connection with the subject matter of this cause and whom the State does not presently intend to call at trial together with their names and last known addresses"; notes, memoranda, or summaries "of any oral statements made to an agent of the State by any person in connection with the subject matter of this cause"; and "[t]he names and addresses of all persons who may have some knowledge of the facts of the present case."8 Petitioner subsequently filed a supplemental motion for discovery and order for records seeking an order directing the "Children's Division to release any and all records, reports, 'hotline' calls, reports and evaluations done by the Family Court of St. Louis County and any reports, evaluations done by any residential placement with regard to" Victim, her two younger siblings, and two other individuals.9 The trial court granted Petitioner's supplemental motion with regard to Victim's records and other materials, and denied it in other respects, except to the extent the requested materials included information the State was otherwise under a duty to disclose.10
The State filed a notification of intent to use child's statements under Section 491.075 RSMo.11 The trial court held a two-day hearing on the State's notification ("491 hearing").12 At the conclusion of the 491 hearing's first day, Petitioner's trial attorney entered her appearance and the trial court granted Petitioner's former attorney leave to withdraw.13 In addition to cross-examining the witnesses during the second day of that hearing, Petitioner's trial attorney reported that, with the concurrence of Petitioner, Petitioner was not filing a motion to suppress the statement he made to the police.14
On the first day of the five-day jury trial, the trial court conferred with counsel to discuss the State's motion in limine and the parties engaged in voir dire examination of potential jurors.15 During trial, the State introduced a number of exhibits, including drawings by Victim, several of Victim's medical records, Petitioner's written statement to the police, and a recording of Victim's interview at the Children's Advocacy Center ("CAC"), which was played for the jury.16 The State also presented the testimony of Victim17 and four adults with whom Victim discussed Petitioner's conduct. Karen McElroy, a teacher at Victim's school, was the person to whom Victim first reported Petitioner's conduct on October 21, 2008.18 Dr. Inna Treskov, a pediatrician at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital's emergency room, examined Victim soon after she reported Petitioner's conduct.19 Megan Fitzgerald Marietta, a forensic interviewer employed by Children's Advocacy Services of Greater St. Louis interviewed Victim and two of her siblings, a younger brother and sister, at the CAC on October 27, 2008.20 Detective Angela Bruno, a detective with the St. Louis County Police Department,21 engaged in what is referred to as a "cursory interview" of Victim and her younger siblings at their home in October 2008, and later arrested Petitioner.22
Victim testified Petitioner "tried to have sex with [her] . . . [i]n the bathroom, the bedroom, and sometimes [on the couch] in the living room" of their home.23 She stated Petitioner took naps on the end of his bed with Victim on one side of him and Victim's younger siblings on the other side of him.24 She described his conduct on the bed as putting his "private spot" in hers, then "[t]he bed would [shake]," "[i]t hurt" her, his breathing "would get heavy," and then "[t]here would be like . . . spots" on the sheets that he "would try to wipe . . . up."25 She testified it happened many times when she was eleven or twelve years old.26 Victim also stated "[m]ore than once" Petitioner put his finger in her front private spot, and he would put "[h]is private spot" in her "back private spot" on her "butt" where "poop" comes out, and Petitioner took her hand and put it on his "private part."27 Sometimes while on the bed, Victim described, Petitioner would unzip his pants, pull Victim's panties down to her knees, and put his penis in Victim's "butt" or vagina.28 Additionally, Victim stated, Petitioner would "put his tongue to [and lick her] private spot" after he placed her on the sink in the bathroom; and he would "grab" her hand and touch "his private spot."29 Victim testified this conduct occurred when she was eleven years old.30
Detective Bruno testified that, during her post-arrest interview of Petitioner, he at first denied "anything happen[ed]," and then admitted that, when his wife was at work, he took "naps" with Victim and her two younger siblings on his bed, with him lying next to Victim and Victim's siblings lying on the other side of Petitioner.31 Detective Bruno asked Petitioner whether, during these "naps," he "performed oral sex" on Victim, "placed [Victim]'s hand on his penis," and "touched [Victim]'s vagina with his hands . . . placing his finger in [Victim's] vagina."32 Petitioner responded affirmatively to those questions, and responded negatively to Detective Bruno's question whether he had sexual intercourse with Victim.33 After further discussion of his Miranda rights, Petitioner wrote a statement that did not include the information he provided when Detective Bruno questioned him.34
At the conclusion of the State's case, Petitioner filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence. The trial court denied Petitioner's motion.35
In the defense case, Petitioner presented five other witnesses36 and testified himself.37 Clarence Leroy Henke ("Roy Henke"), Petitioner's brother, and his wife, Rhonda Henke, stated they took care of Victim and her two younger siblings at their home on numerous occasions, both while Petitioner and his wife worked and then, after Petitioner's arrest, as foster parents, except that Victim was placed with a different foster parent after a few months.38 Gena Morice, whose husband is the brother of Petitioner's wife, and who has a son named Robert Engle or "Bobby," testified that, prior to the incidents involving Petitioner, Victim had accused Bobby of inappropriately touching her and then, when talking about the accusation with Ms. Morice, told Ms. Morice that she "was lying [or "didn't tell the truth"] about the whole incident," and the accusation was not further investigated.39 Stacy Cooper, Petitioner's wife and Victim's step-mother, testified in relevant part that (1) she was asked not to speak with Victim or her siblings after Victim reported the incidents involving Petitioner and (2) she did not answer or respond to telephone calls Victim made to Ms. Cooper's home leaving messages that she was "sorry."40 Lionel Morice, Stacy Cooper's father and Petitioner's father-in-law, testified Stacy Cooper had lived with him since Victim's report of the incidents and Mr. Morice had suggested to her that she turn Petitioner's children "over to social services, Children's Services."41
At the close of all the evidence, Petitioner filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence. The trial court denied Petitioner's motion.42
In its instructions, the trial court directed the jury to base its decision "only on the evidence presented to [the jury] in the proceedings in th[e] courtroom.43 Additionally, the trial court instructed the jury:
(Footnore added.)
With regard to the offenses, the trial court defined "deviate sexual intercourse" as:
any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue, or anus of another person or a sexual...
To continue reading
Request your trial