State v. Irwin
| Decision Date | 19 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 107266,ED 107266 |
| Citation | 592 S.W.3d 96 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Daniel W. IRWIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
592 S.W.3d 96
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Daniel W. IRWIN, Appellant.
No. ED 107266
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: November 19, 2019
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied December 30, 2019
Application for Transfer Denied February 16, 2020
FOR APPELLANT, Jedd C. Schneider, Missouri Public Defender’s Office, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203.
FOR RESPONDENT, Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Philip M. Hess, Presiding Judge
Introduction
Daniel W. Irwin ("Defendant") appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which was entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of five separate counts of second-degree child molestation for acts committed against T.G. ("Victim"), a minor child. Defendant brings two points on appeal. First, Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause in admitting the out-of-court prior section 491.0751 hearing ("491 Hearing") testimony of Heather Nickelson-Mathieson ("Mathieson"), a Children’s Division investigator, because the State failed to prove she was unavailable and he was denied an effective opportunity to cross-examine her at the 491 Hearing. Second, Defendant contends the trial court plainly erred in submitting verdict directors, Instructions 9, 10, 11, and 12, on Counts III and IV because they failed to sufficiently differentiate the sexual contact alleged in each, which violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict. He further contends the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury they could not convict him twice for a single act.
The trial court did not err in declaring Mathieson unavailable and admitting her 491 Hearing testimony at trial because, during her 491 Hearing testimony, Mathieson disclosed she would be living in England at the time of Defendant’s trial and Defendant had an effective opportunity to cross-examine her at the 491 Hearing. The trial court did not plainly err in submitting verdict directors, Instructions 9, 10, 11, and 12, on Counts III and IV because the sexual contact alleged in Count IV was sufficiently differentiated from the sexual contact alleged in Count III. The trial court appropriately instructed the jury that each of the five charged counts constituted a separate offense and must be considered separately. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Factual and Procedural Background
"We limit our summary of the relevant evidence to that necessary to decide Defendant’s point[s] on appeal, and we view it ‘in the light most favorable to the verdict.’ " State v. Lewis , 514 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017) (quoting State v. Baumruk , 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo. banc 2009) ). Defendant was charged in St. Francois
County by Grand Jury Indictment on June 22, 2017, with five counts of second-degree child molestation under section 566.068. The charges asserted Defendant had deviate sexual contact with Victim, a person less than twelve years old, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire by "placing his hand on [Victim]’s vagina," (Counts I, II, IV, and V) or "placing his fingers on [Victim]’s vagina" (Count III).
The facts underlying Defendant’s charges are as follows. Defendant was a friend of Victim’s family and a frequent visitor at Victim’s residence. In April 2017, Victim told her mother Defendant had touched her vaginal area on seven instances. Victim told her mother the first incident occurred while she and Defendant watched Finding Dory on the living-room couch at her residence. Victim said Defendant tickled her stomach and put his hand into her pants and inside her underwear, resting his hand on top of her vagina. Victim told her mother the second incident occurred in a motel in Potosi, Missouri. Victim said she was sitting on Defendant’s lap on a recliner when he reached under a blanket covering her, put his hand in her underwear, and tapped his fingers near her vagina on the skin. Victim told her mother the third incident occurred at the same motel in Potosi, Missouri, a few nights later when Defendant reached under a blanket covering her and put his hand in her underwear.2
Victim told her mother the fourth incident occurred while she watched Lost on the living-room couch at her residence with Defendant and her family. During that incident, Defendant reached under a blanket covering Victim and put his hand in her underwear. Victim told her mother the fifth incident occurred while she and Defendant watched Me Again on the living-room couch at her residence. Victim said Defendant tickled her stomach, rubbed her leg, slid his hand into her underwear, touched her vagina, and then removed his hand and licked his fingers one at a time. Victim told her mother the sixth incident occurred while she attempted to watch Lost on the living-room couch at her residence with Defendant and her family, but the Internet kept "skipping out." Defendant put his hand under a blanket covering Victim and slid his hand into her underwear. Victim told her mother the seventh incident occurred at Defendant’s photography studio while she sat on his lap looking at a computer screen. Defendant tickled Victim’s stomach, slid his hand into her underwear, and placed his hand on top of her vagina.
491 Hearing
On December 18, 2017, the State filed a Notice Pursuant to Section 491.075.3. Specifically, the State intended to introduce out-of-court statements made by T.G. to Mathieson, a Children’s Division investigator, at trial. The trial court held the 491 Hearing on February 15, 2018.
On January 5, 2018, Mathieson was subpoenaed to testify at the 491 Hearing on February 18, 2015. Mathieson lived in the United States when she was subpoenaed. After she was subpoenaed but before the 491 Hearing, Mathieson moved to England. Mathieson testified at the 491 Hearing via Skype from her home in England. Mathieson communicated with the trial court through audio only, however, the trial court and the parties could see Mathieson on a video feed. Mathieson testified that, in her role as a Children’s Division investigator, she received an investigation
listing Defendant as the alleged perpetrator "for fondling and touching" Victim. Mathieson met with Victim and Victim’s mother at their home for a "cursory interview"3 on April 11, 2017. Mathieson testified she knew Victim disclosed that Defendant had touched her "inappropriately" to her mother. Mathieson recalled that when she asked Victim if Victim knew why Mathieson was there, Victim said because a family friend had touched her "inappropriately." Mathieson testified Victim told her there were at least seven occasions where Defendant had touched her "inappropriately" on her "front," which Mathieson later determined was her vaginal area.
Mathieson testified Victim described three incidents to her during the cursory interview. The first incident occurred while Victim and Defendant watched Finding Dory on the living-room couch at her residence. Mathieson testified Defendant began "rubbing [Victim’s] stomach, like [Victim’s] lower abdomen and then slowly moved down to actually touching [Victim’s] vaginal area" underneath Victim’s clothes. Victim told Mathieson this incident lasted five to ten minutes. The second incident occurred at a motel in Potosi, Missouri. Defendant watched a television show while sitting in a recliner and Victim sat on his lap. Victim told Mathieson Defendant touched her vaginal area underneath a cover and licked his fingers after removing them from her underwear. The third incident occurred at Defendant’s photography business in Park Hills, Missouri. Defendant cross-examined Mathieson regarding her interview of Victim. Following Defendant’s cross-examination, the State questioned Mathieson:
Q: [Mathieson], wait, before you leave, let me go ahead and make this record, if I can? You live in England?
A: Yes.
Q: And you – so is it fair to say you will be living in England in [sic] May 3 and 4, of this year?
A: Yes. I will live here for a long time.
Q: Okay. So since you live in England we can only bring you back by a treaty. We have to arrest you by treaty and drag you across the ocean?
A: Yes.
Defendant told the trial court he had no further questions. The trial court told Mathieson she was "excused."
Pre-Trial Motion Hearing
Three days before trial, the trial court held a pre-trial motion hearing at which it heard argument on Mathieson’s unavailability for trial. The State argued Mathieson was unavailable because she resided in England at the time of Defendant’s trial. The State argued that, because England is a sovereign country and part of the United Kingdom, it could not compel Mathieson’s testimony at Defendant’s trial. In response, Defendant said, "I'm objecting, number one, she was able to appear via Skype at the 491 [Hearing]. And it was my understanding that if she wasn't here
physically, the same could be done at trial." Defendant also argued that, while his cross-examination of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Borst
...trial objection failed to cite the rule requiring timely disclosure. 513 S.W.3d at 364 n.2 ; see also , e.g. , State v. Irwin , 592 S.W.3d 96, 106-07 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (defendant preserved his argument that the reading of an investigator's prior testimony at trial violated the Confrontat......
-
State v. Borst
... ... the State had failed to timely disclose ... discovery materials, even though the defendant's trial ... objection failed to cite the rule requiring timely ... disclosure. 513 S.W.3d at 364 n.2; see also , ... e.g. , State v. Irwin , 592 S.W.3d 96, 106-07 ... (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (defendant preserved his argument that ... the reading of an investigator's prior testimony at trial ... violated the Confrontation Clause, where counsel objected ... that the investigator was available to testify by ... ...
-
State v. Howell
...appropriate. Courts write not to persuade but rather to demonstrate their decisions are "grounded in precedent." State v. Irwin , 592 S.W.3d 96, 105 n.4 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). By contrast, we urge advocates, for whom credibility and accuracy are essential in order to carry their burden of pe......
-
Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n (In re Rate Increase Request for Liberty Utilities (Mo. Water), LLC), WD 82532
... ... We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background 1 The Missouri General Assembly created the PSC to serve as the state administrative agency authorized to regulate public utilities, including water corporations and sewer corporations, operating within Missouri ... ...