State v. Alul, No. 68380

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtGERALD M. SMITH; CRANE, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI
Citation948 S.W.2d 215
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mohammed (Michael) ALUL, Appellant. Mohammed (Michael) ALUL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision Date27 June 1997
Docket NumberNo. 68380

Page 215

948 S.W.2d 215
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Mohammed (Michael) ALUL, Appellant.
Mohammed (Michael) ALUL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 68380.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Two.
June 27, 1997.

Page 216

Arthur S. Margulis, David R. Crosby, Margulis & Grant, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Att. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

GERALD M. SMITH, Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of the class B felony of sodomy in violation of section 566.060, RSMo 1986. He also appeals from denial of his post-conviction motion pursuant to Rule 29.15. We reverse the conviction and dismiss the 29.15 appeal.

We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. On August 28, 1986, J.C., eleven years old went to defendant, her family's regular physician, for a routine physical examination so she could participate in volleyball during the upcoming school year. J.C.'s mother dropped her off at the doctor's office but did not accompany her to the examination because she had an errand.

Defendant performed a routine physical examination including examination of J.C.'s eyes, ears, nose and throat, and listening to her heart. Defendant inquired if J.C. had begun menstruating and she answered affirmatively. Defendant then requested that she pull down her shorts and underwear and lie on the examination table. She did. Defendant then placed his left hand on her lower abdomen and inserted something into J.C.'s vagina. J.C. could not see her vaginal area but believed that what was inserted was defendant's finger or fingers. Defendant did not wear gloves during the examination, and did not use instruments to perform the examination. No nurse or attendant was present during the examination, and the door was closed. Defendant moved his finger or fingers inside J.C.'s vagina during the examination. During the examination defendant asked J.C. "How does this feel?", and she replied that it hurt. During the examination defendant did not touch himself and was not breathing heavily. J.C. testified that the vaginal examination lasted "a long time" but that description was never quantified. Following the examination, defendant told J.C. to get dressed, washed his hands and left the examining room. When J.C.'s mother picked her up after the examination J.C. was upset and crying, but did not want to talk about why. She did state that she hated defendant and did not want to go back to him again. Nearly seven years after the examination J.C. was watching television and saw defendant on the evening news. She became pale and told her mother of the examination in defendant's office seven years previously. Her parents called the police and this prosecution resulted.

The state utilized a board certified pediatrician who was a sexual abuse forensics examination network physician as an expert witness. She testified that it was not uncommon for children to delay in reporting sexual abuse for reasons of shame or embarrassment. She testified that it was unusual to do an internal examination of the genitals of an eleven year old girl without any indication that the child is sexually active or there is a particular complaint or medical problem that required such an examination. She said it was improper to give an internal pelvic examination without obtaining the permission of the patient or the parent, that such an examination should not be given without a third person in the room, and that proper protocol called for utilization of gloves during the examination. She could find no documentation in J.C.'s chart that a pelvic examination had been made and testified that such

Page 217

documentation should have been made. She also testified that the proper question to ask during such an examination is "Does this hurt?" rather than the question posed by the defendant.

She admitted she could not read defendant's handwriting and acknowledged that other portions of the physical examination were also not on the chart and that the physician may not have been a "detailed charting person". She testified that the reason for having a third person in the room was to protect the examiner as well as to make the patient comfortable. She admitted that some doctors were more scrupulous about using gloves than others, and that while the proper protocol in 1986 called for wearing gloves, the AIDS epidemic has made that protocol more mandatory at the present time.

The expert was asked to describe the method of performance of an internal pelvic examination. She stated it was performed by palpating with one hand on the lower abdomen and two fingers internally, moving the fingers inside the vaginal vault to feel all surfaces to locate masses. 1

Defendant has raised eight points on appeal. Because the first point, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, is dispositive we need address only that point.

The standard for appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction was stated in State v. Dulany, 781...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Chaney, No. 79595
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 24, 1998
    ...1986) (quoting State v. Black, 611 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Mo.App.1980)). Chaney argues that Grim did not abrogate this rule. See State v. Alul, 948 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Dooley, 919 S.W.2d 539, 541 (Mo.App.1995); State v. Mayfield, 879 S.W.2d 561, 564-65 (Mo.App.1994); see also ......
  • State v. Campbell, WD 82209
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 11, 2020
    ...to preclude a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Appellant's Brief, pp. 21-22]. Campbell's argument relies on State v. Alul , 948 S.W.2d 215 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), and its discussion of the equally valid inferences rule. Campbell's reliance on Alul is unavailing. The equally valid ......
  • State v. Burnett, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 23, 1998
    ...which establishes his innocence. Thus, the evidence cannot establish as a matter of law, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Alul, 948 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Dooley, 919 S.W.2d 539, 541 The defendant suggests that two equally plausible inferences may be drawn from his......
  • State v. Duncan, No. 21501
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 31, 1997
    ...he argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In support, he cites State v. Alul, 948 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Mo.App. E.D.1997), and State v. Dooley, 919 S.W.2d 539, 541 (Mo.App. In State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo.banc 1993), cert. denie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Chaney, No. 79595
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 24, 1998
    ...1986) (quoting State v. Black, 611 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Mo.App.1980)). Chaney argues that Grim did not abrogate this rule. See State v. Alul, 948 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Dooley, 919 S.W.2d 539, 541 (Mo.App.1995); State v. Mayfield, 879 S.W.2d 561, 564-65 (Mo.App.1994); see also ......
  • State v. Campbell, WD 82209
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 11, 2020
    ...to preclude a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Appellant's Brief, pp. 21-22]. Campbell's argument relies on State v. Alul , 948 S.W.2d 215 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), and its discussion of the equally valid inferences rule. Campbell's reliance on Alul is unavailing. The equally valid ......
  • State v. Burnett, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 23, 1998
    ...which establishes his innocence. Thus, the evidence cannot establish as a matter of law, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Alul, 948 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Dooley, 919 S.W.2d 539, 541 The defendant suggests that two equally plausible inferences may be drawn from his......
  • State v. Duncan, No. 21501
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 31, 1997
    ...he argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In support, he cites State v. Alul, 948 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Mo.App. E.D.1997), and State v. Dooley, 919 S.W.2d 539, 541 (Mo.App. In State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo.banc 1993), cert. denie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT