State v. Blair, ED 84888.

Decision Date01 November 2005
Docket NumberNo. ED 84888.,ED 84888.
Citation175 S.W.3d 197
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Glen BLAIR, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

N. Scott Rosenblum, Mark W. Lyons, Clayton, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., Presiding Judge.

Appellant, Glen Blair ("Defendant"), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, following a jury trial, finding him guilty of four counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, section 566.062, RSMo 20001, one count of child molestation in the first degree, section 566.067, and one count of sexual misconduct involving a child, section 566.083. Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to twenty years imprisonment for each count of statutory sodomy in the first degree, ten years imprisonment for child molestation in the first degree, and three years imprisonment for sexual misconduct involving a child, all sentences to be served in the Missouri Department of Corrections and to run concurrently. We affirm.2

In August of 2002, Sarah Gant ("Ms. Gant") and her two children, X.M. and Q.G., moved into Defendant's residence. On several occasions, between November 1, 2002 and January 31, 2003, Defendant engaged in inappropriate sexual activities with X.M. At the time of Defendant's trial, X.M. was thirteen years old.

X.M. did not immediately report any of the incidents because Defendant threatened X.M. that if she did, he would put her and her family "out on the streets." However, X.M. eventually told her grandmother and mother about the incidents and X.M.'s mother reported them to the police.

On March 4, 2003, X.M. was interviewed by Ms. Luzette Wood ("Ms. Wood") at the Children's Advocacy Center ("the CAC") in St. Louis. In a videotaped interview ("the videotape"), X.M. reported that Defendant had engaged in inappropriate sexual activities with her. The videotape was later played for the jury and is the subject of this appeal.

On April 1, 2003, Defendant was charged with five counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, one count of child molestation in the first degree, one count of sexual misconduct in the first degree, and one count of sexual misconduct involving a child. On April 1, 20043, the State of Missouri ("the State") filed its "Notice of Intention to Use Statements Under 491.075.3 RSMo." In its notice, the State informed Defendant of its intention to offer into evidence out-of-court statements made by X.M. to a class of persons including Ms. Wood from the CAC, and that such evidence would include, inter alia, videotapes.

A jury trial took place from April 26 to April 30, 2004. On April 27, 2004, a hearing took place outside the presence of the jury on the admissibility of X.M.'s out-of-court statements to Ms. Wood on the videotape. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found there was a sufficient showing of reliability to render the videotape admissible.

Defendant made an oral motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case and an oral motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the entire case, both of which the trial court denied. On April 30, 2004, the jury found Defendant guilty of four counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, one count of child molestation in the first degree, and one count of sexual misconduct involving a child. On May 21, 2004, Defendant filed a motion for directed verdict of acquittal, or, in the alternative, for a new trial.4 On June 17, 2004, Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to twenty years imprisonment for each count of statutory sodomy in the first degree, ten years imprisonment for child molestation in the first degree, and three years imprisonment for sexual misconduct involving a child, all sentences to be served in the Missouri Department of Corrections and to run concurrently. This appeal followed.

In his sole point on appeal, Defendant asserts that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when the videotape was admitted through the hearsay exception of section 491.075.3.

We note initially that we have jurisdiction in this case because, as discussed below, Defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of section 491.075.3 was not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Bowens, 964 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Mo.App.E.D.1998).

In order to preserve a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Blair v. Bowersox
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 13 Julio 2012
    ...of the victim incriminating him inasmuch as he did not raise theissue until after trial in his motion for new trial. State v. Blair, 175 S.W.3d 197 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005); (Resp. Exh. E). Petitioner did not seek further review in the Missouri Supreme Court, and his time for doing so expired on......
  • Willits v. Peabody Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 25 Junio 2013
    ...review. Mo. Utils. Co. v. Scott–New Madrid–Mississippi Elec. Co–op., 450 S.W.2d 182, 185 (Mo.1970); see also State v. Blair, 175 S.W.3d 197, 199 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). However, although it rarely occurs, “a constitutional question may, in a proper case, be first raised in a motion for a new tr......
  • Willits v. Peabody Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 9 Abril 2013
    ...review. Mo. Util. Co. v. Scott-New Mardrid-Mississippi Elec. Co-op., 450 S.W.2d 182, 185 (Mo. 1970); see also State v. Blair, 175 S.W.3d 197, 199 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). However, although it rarely occurs, "a constitutional question may, in a proper case, be first raised in a motion for a new......
  • State v. Newlon
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 13 Febrero 2007
    ...comprise the constitutional violation, and (4) preserve the constitutional issue throughout the criminal proceeding. State v. Blair, 175 S.W.3d 197, 199 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). In his first sub-point on appeal, Defendant asserts that section 191.677.4 is unconstitutionally overbroad. We note th......
  • 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