State v. Hoy
| Decision Date | 27 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 742 S.W.2d 206 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Roy H. HOY, Jr., Appellant. 39029. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Sean D. O'Brien, Public Defender, David S. Durbin, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
Albert A. Riederer, Pros. Atty., Robert Frager, Asst. Pros. Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before KENNEDY, C.J., and SHANGLER and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.
Roy Hoy was charged by information filed March 6, 1986, with the class D felony of nonsupport of his two children. Section 568.040, RSMo 1986. A jury convicted Hoy of the class A misdemeanor of nonsupport. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a fine of $500 to be suspended upon Hoy's payment of $250 in child support. Hoy has appealed on a number of grounds. The issue on which disposition of this appeal turns is whether a civil decree of dissolution naming children born of a marriage acts to preclude the issue of paternity in a criminal prosecution for non-support.
There is little dispute about the facts supporting the verdict. Roy and Catherine Hoy were married in December, 1971. The marriage ended in divorce in March, 1982. The findings of fact in the Decree of Dissolution recite that two children were "born of the marriage." Under the terms of the decree, Hoy was ordered to pay his ex-spouse seventy five dollars per month per child as support. It is undisputed Hoy made only two child support payments in the some four years between the divorce and the instigation of this criminal action for nonsupport.
Hoy's point concerning his pretrial request for serological blood tests on himself, his wife, and the two children as a means to contest paternity will now be taken up. The request was overruled based on the trial court's opinion the challenge could not be maintained since the issue of paternity had been settled in the divorce action. In argument on the motion, both the trial court and the prosecution acknowledged that paternity was an issue to be proven by the state in a nonsupport case, but the court denied the discovery motion by giving the decree in the civil case the effect of collateral estoppel on the issue of paternity. In the course of the trial evidence as to paternity was presented by the prosecution through Catherine Hoy, who testified that the couple had had two children during the marriage. The dissolution decree was also received in evidence. Hoy presented no evidence as to paternity. During oral argument in this court, counsel for Hoy asserted without the blood test evidence, Hoy's assertion that he was not the father would only have served to antagonize the jury.
Hoy now contends that the trial court erred in overruling his request for blood tests because the use of collateral estoppel was inappropriate and denied him due process by preventing his defense of nonpaternity.
There is no question that § 568.040 includes the element of paternity. The section states that "a parent commits the crime of nonsupport if such parent knowingly fails to provide, without good cause, adequate support which such parent is legally obligated to provide for his minor child or his stepchild." (Emphasis added). Furthermore, the applicable jury instructions require a finding of paternity; the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt "that Roger G. Hoy and Thomas S. Hoy were then the defendant's children...." MAI-CR3d 22.08. The state's present contention that paternity is not an element of the crime is rejected.
Disposition of this appeal must start with certain premises basic to criminal law. "[I]t goes without saying that the state is always obliged to establish every constituent element of the offense." State v. Osborne, 413 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Mo.App.1967). The state must prove each element of the offense and defendant's guilt thereof beyond a reasonable doubt. Charles v. State, 573 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Fitch, 162 S.W.2d 327, 330 (Mo App.1942). The requirement that each element be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is a constitutional due process right. State v. Bailey, 645 S.W.2d 211, 212 (Mo.App.1983). The beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof is higher than the civil preponderance of the evidence standard. The higher standard is intended to provide a measure of protection to an accused when his liberty interest is at stake. At issue here is whether the requirements of due process are satisfied when the trial court denies a defendant's request for blood tests to challenge paternity and bases that denial on a civil divorce decree.
Hoy argues on appeal that the denial of his request for blood tests was error because collateral estoppel was not proper, preventing him from presenting his defense of nonpaternity and violating his due process rights. This court agrees the collateral estoppel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Yelli
...Thus, the prior civil adjudications are admitted as nonconclusive evidence of the defendant's support obligation. See, State v. Hoy, 742 S.W.2d 206 (Mo.App.1987) (due process violated in criminal nonsupport action when court denied defendant's pretrial request for blood tests to contest pat......
-
State v. Salazar
...beyond a reasonable doubt, and because he is not allowed to present relevant evidence negating an element of the crime." State v. Hoy, 742 S.W.2d 206, 208 (Mo.App.1987) (other holdings noted to be superseded by statute). Because this Court is to interpret statutes in a way that renders them......
-
Cooper v. Cooper
... ... See, Simmons v. Megerman, 742 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Mo.App.1987). If a party does not receive proper notice, a court cannot enter a contempt judgment. See, State ex rel. Shepherd v. Steeb, 734 S.W.2d 610, 611-12 (Mo.App.1987). Where a person's liberty is ... at stake the proper notice has been held "essential to the court's jurisdiction in the premises that the mandatory requirements of the law be fully complied with." Ex Parte Trant, 238 Mo.App. 105, ... ...
-
State ex rel. State v. Campbell, 71256
...the case, the results of Defendant's proposed blood test are irrelevant to his guilt or innocence. Respondent relies on State v. Hoy, 742 S.W.2d 206 (Mo.App.W.D.1987) as support for his alleged right to have blood tests performed. The facts in Hoy are similar to the instant case. A man was ......