State v. Haneline

• Docket Number: SD37401
• Decision Date: 29 November 2023
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALAN D. HANELINE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ALAN D. HANELINE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. SD37401

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, In Division

November 29, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PHELPS COUNTY THE HONORABLE RONALD D. WHITE, SENIOR JUDGE

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, J.

Alan D. Haneline appeals the judgment entered following a jury verdict in the Circuit Court of Phelps County ("trial court") convicting him of one count of child molestation in the first degree (Count I) and one count of child molestation in the fourth degree (Count II). In five points on appeal, Mr. Haneline argues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the State's expert witness's testimony because the State failed to disclose her statements; (2) the trial court plainly erred in submitting the verdict director on Count I because Mr. Haneline was denied his right to a unanimous jury verdict in that the elements could have been met by any of the multiple acts for which there was evidence; (3) the trial court plainly erred in submitting the verdict director for Count II because Mr.

2

Haneline was denied his right to a unanimous jury verdict in that the elements could likewise have been met by multiple acts for which there was evidence; (4) the trial court erred in entering a judgment of conviction as to child molestation in the fourth degree because there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty; and (5) the trial court plainly erred in "reading Instruction Number 6, the verdict director for Count II, to the jury" because the instruction permitted the jury to find Mr. Haneline guilty of a crime that did not exist, exposing him to an ex post facto law. After considering his arguments, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Mr. Haneline's convictions arise from the sexual abuse of his step-granddaughter, Victim. Victim was born in February of 2002. She spent every other weekend, sometimes once a month, throughout her childhood with her maternal grandmother and Mr. Haneline. Mr. Haneline's property included a small house and a cabin about one or two miles apart. Victim grew very close to Mr. Haneline and remained so until she was fourteen years of age.

In January of 2017, Victim and Mr. Haneline were together in the cabin hunting coyotes from a bedroom window. While Victim was laying on the bed, Mr. Haneline crawled into bed next to her and began rubbing her back. He wrapped his hands around her and started talking to her as if it was a normal conversation about the day. He then put his hands down her pants and up her shirt. He grabbed her breasts and touched her genitals. Mr. Haneline directed Victim to take her pants off and, after she did so, he performed oral sex on her by touching his mouth to her genitals and "penetrating" her vagina.

3

Victim disclosed the incident with Mr. Haneline to her paternal grandmother on January 20, 2017, before she turned 15 years old, and said he "was doing things to her that she didn't like and she had asked him to quit." Her paternal grandmother informed Victim's mother, and Victim's mother called Victim's father. Victim's father made a phone call to law enforcement, and they took her to the sheriff's department in Texas County. Victim eventually participated in two forensic interviews at the Children's Advocacy Center where she disclosed the sexual abuse.

Rowdy Douglas, Chief Deputy for the Texas County Sheriff's Department, interviewed Mr. Haneline. Mr. Haneline denied the allegations, but told Deputy Douglas, "Well, the only thing we ever did a few times was talk about sex questions. She'd ask me sex questions." Mr. Haneline stated that Victim asked him how one would have sex without getting pregnant, and he told her to get birth control. He also admitted to making comments about how big Victim's breasts were getting. During a search of the cabin, the Sheriff's department found "a bunch of washcloths."

Based on Victim's disclosures, a grand jury indicted Mr. Haneline on one count of child molestation in the first degree, alleging that "between January 1, 2009 and January 20, 2017, . . . the defendant knowingly subjected [Victim] . . . who was less than twelve years old to sexual contact by performing oral sex on her[.]" The grand jury later, by superseding indictment, indicted Mr. Haneline with two separate counts of child molestation in the first degree: Count I - class B felony of child molestation in the first degree for "knowingly subject[ing] [Victim] to sexual contact by an act involving his mouth and her genitals" when she was less than 14 years of age; and Count II - class A felony of child molestation in the first degree for "knowingly subject[ing] [Victim] to

4

sexual contact by an act involving his mouth and her genitals" when she was less than 14 years of age. The case proceeded to a jury trial on October 25, 2021.

Victim recounted other instances of sexual abuse at the trial in addition to the incident from January of 2017. She testified that, sometime after 2009 and before December of 2016 when she was around the age of 11 to 13, Mr. Haneline had done the "exact same thing" before. This also occurred at the cabin when they were hunting coyotes and while Victim and Mr. Haneline were "watching Bonanza." Mr. Haneline started "talking about sex" and "boys" and explained she could have sex with him because he could not get her pregnant. Mr. Haneline also told her she could not get pregnant through oral sex and told her he would show her. Again, Mr. Haneline performed oral sex on her by touching his mouth to her genitals.

Victim also testified that Mr. Haneline had vaginal sex with her sometime between December of 2016 and 2017, when she was "around 13" years old. Victim had woken up in the morning to check cows and feed the farm animals with Mr. Haneline. When they were finished with the chores and as she was taking her coat off in the basement, Mr. Haneline stopped her, "kind of like grabbed [her] from behind[,]" and said, "Let's go to the cabin and have a little bit of fun." Mr. Haneline drove Victim to the cabin and, when they walked in, he told her to take her clothes off. Mr. Haneline told her to "just lay on the bed[,]" then he got on top of her. He performed oral sex on her and directed her to touch his genitals and to perform oral sex on him. He then penetrated her vagina with his penis, but she told him he was hurting her and asked him to stop. He told her she could not tell anybody about what happened because he could go to jail. Other than these specific episodes of abuse, Victim explained Mr. Haneline also touched her

5

vagina outside of her clothes in the house when she was younger and groped her when people in the house would not catch it.

Mr. Haneline testified in his defense and denied all of the abuse allegations. He said everything Victim said about sexual abuse "[was] a lie" and argued Victim was lying because her mother owed him $25,000. The jury found Mr. Haneline guilty of child molestation in the first degree (Count I) and the statutory lesser included offense of child molestation in the fourth degree (Count II). The trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of ten years' imprisonment on Count I and two years' imprisonment on Count II.

Discussion

For ease of analysis, we address Mr. Haneline's five points on appeal out of order. Points Two, Three, and Five - Mr. Haneline waived his right to challenge the verdict directors submitted to the jury.

Standard of Review

Mr. Haneline concedes he did not preserve his claims under Points Two, Three, and Five for appeal and therefore asks for plain error review pursuant to Rule 30.20.^[1] We may review an unpreserved claim for plain error when the claimed error "facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted." State v. Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Mo. banc 2020) (quoting State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017)). If there is no facial showing of manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, appellate courts should decline to exercise plain error review. Id. at 526. The alleged error must be evident, obvious, and

6

clear; as well as outcome determinative. State v. Minor, 648 S.W.3d 721, 731 (Mo. banc 2022).

For a trial court's jury instructions to constitute plain error, the defendant must demonstrate the court "so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury that the error affected the jury's verdict." State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150, 154 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Dorsey, 318 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Mo. banc 2010)). Instructional error rarely reaches this level. State v. Gannan, 658 S.W.3d 103, 111-12 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022); State v. DeRoy, 623 S.W.3d 778, 789 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021).

Additional Facts Relevant to Points Two, Three, and Five

During the instruction conference at trial, Mr. Haneline's counsel stated he had no objection to these instructions. Specifically, defense counsel stated: "[The State] and I cooperated pretty well on -- on formulating these instructions, and I think we worked them out by ourselves." The trial court submitted Instruction Numbers 5 and 6 to the jury. Instruction Number 5 alleged Mr. Haneline committed child molestation in the first degree "between January 1, 2009 and January 31, 2016," when he "touched the genitals of [Victim.]" Instruction Number 6 submitted child molestation in the fourth degree, alleging Mr. Haneline, "between December 31, 2016 and January 25, 2017, . . . touched [Victim]'s . . . genitals with his mouth[.]"

Analysis

Mr. Haneline argues under Point Two that:

The trial court plainly erred in submitting Instruction Number 5, the verdict director for Count I, to the jury, in that the general description of the elements could have been met by any of the multiple acts for which there were evidence. The error meant that Appellant was

...