State v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 26 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 100328.,ED 100328. |
| Citation | 439 S.W.3d 276 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael R. JACKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Matthew A. Radefeld, Clayton, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Adam S. Rowley, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Michael Jackson (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062. Defendant contends the trial court erred in: (1) failing to grant Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case because the State failed to present a submissible case; (2) allowing the transcript of the Child Advocacy Center video into evidence; and (3) excluding Defendant's Exhibit B from the evidence. We affirm.
The State filed a complaint charging Defendant with eight counts of first-degree statutory sodomy. The victim testified at trial that Defendant, her uncle, touched her vagina with his fingers and a vibrator and would also insert his fingers in her vagina on multiple occasions beginning when she was in fourth grade. The victim also testified she did not tell anyone because she thought she would be in trouble. However, after a few years, when the victim was in ninth grade, she eventually told her friends about the touching, which was still occurring. Thereafter she also told her mother about the situation. The victim then gave a statement at the police station and was also interviewed by Connilee Christie at the Child Advocacy Center.
Subsequently, the State filed a notice of its intent to use the child victim's statements under Section 491.075. Defendant filed an objection to the admission of hearsay statements pursuant to Section 491.075.
Before trial, the trial court held a Section 491.075 hearing. At the hearing, Officer Steve Michael testified the victim came to the police station where he interviewed her and she told him Defendant had penetrated her vagina with his fingers numerous times while she tried to sleep. The victim's mother also testified how the victim told her about Defendant touching her vagina. Christie also testified about the interview she conducted with the victim, wherein the victim told her how Defendant touched her vagina several times, beginning when she was nine years old and continuing until she was thirteen years old. Christie's interview was recorded on a DVD, which was provided to the court. The trial court found the State would be permitted to introduce the statements made by the victim to Officer Michael, her mother, and Christie.
The State then filed an amended notice of its intent to use the child victim's statements under Section 491.075. The trial court subsequently held a second Section 491.075 hearing, allowing the State to present the testimony of the victim's friends from middle school. They testified the victim told them about Defendant touching her vagina while she was trying to sleep. The trial court granted the amended motion, finding statements made by the victim to her friends were admissible.
At trial, Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence and at the close of all the evidence. Both of these motions were denied. The jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy and not guilty of two counts.1
Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, for a new trial. This motion was denied. Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment on one count and a concurrent ten years on the other. This appeal follows.
In his first point, Defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to grant Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case because the State failed to present a submissible case in that the testimony of the victim was contradictory and in conflict with physical facts. As a result, Defendant contends the victim's testimony required corroboration, which was never presented. We disagree.
We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal to determine if the State made a submissible case by presenting sufficient evidence. State v. Hill, 408 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo.App.E.D.2013). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences.Id. Our review is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We accept as true all evidence favorable to the State and disregard all evidence to the contrary. Id. Reasonable inferences can be drawn from both direct and circumstantial evidence. Id. Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to support a conviction. Id. It is for the finder of fact to determine the reliability, credibility, and weight of witness testimony. Id.
The general rule is that a criminal conviction may be sustained by the victim's testimony alone, even if that testimony is uncorroborated. State v. Cook, 339 S.W.3d 523, 529 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). An exception, called the “corroboration rule,” previously came into play in Missouri in the particular context of sexual offense cases. Id. However, the Missouri Supreme Court recently abolished the corroboration rule. State v. Porter, 2014 WL 3729864 (Mo. banc 2014). Thus, our review is to be guided by the well-established standard of review for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Id.
Defendant contends there are numerous conflicts between the victim's testimony at trial and the victim's out-of-court statements that were admitted into evidence at trial.
The victim first divulged the abuse to her friends. The victim told them Defendant fingered her at his house while she was sleeping there. The victim's friends encouraged her to tell her mother so she wrote her mother a note, which stated “Mom, [Defendant] touched me in my vagina.” The victim's mother asked her if it was true later and the victim said it was. Thereafter, the victim's mother took her to the police station where the victim talked to Officer Michael. The victim told Officer Michael the abuse happened at Defendant's house when she was sleeping. The victim also told Officer Michael the abuse began when she was nine years old and continued for about a four year period. Next the victim was interviewed by Christie at the Child Advocacy Center. During that interview, the victim described in detail two instances for which Defendant was eventually convicted.
The first instance, the victim testified, occurred when she was suspended from school in fourth grade and was sleeping at Defendant's house. The victim stated Defendant pulled down her pants and began touching her vagina. The victim was in the same waterbed as her cousin, during this incident. The victim stated she woke up, pulled up her pants, and went to the bathroom. When she returned, she tried to go back to sleep, but she stated, Defendant kept trying to touch her, which caused her to kick Defendant, who then stopped. The victim's cousin never woke up during this incident.
The other instance, about which the victim testified in detail, involved Defendant touching her after watching a movie. First, the victim stated Defendant did not touch her vagina, but just rubbed her leg. However, later during the Child Advocacy Center interview, the victim testified Defendant touched her vagina with his hands and with a vibrator while she was in his bed. At trial, the victim testified her cousin was asleep in bed between her and Defendant, but Defendant turned himself around and touch her from the bottom of the bed. Again, the victim's cousin was not awakened during this incident.
Defendant argues each time the victim made allegations of abuse further details emerged. Defendant also emphasizes the fact that the victim never mentioned that one of the incidents she described in detail occurred on a waterbed. Defendant contends this fact makes her story less believable because it decreases the likelihood that the victim's cousin, who was on the same bed at the time, could have slept through the incidents. Moreover, regarding the other incident the victim described in detail, Defendant argues she failed to mention her cousin was sleeping in between the victim and Defendant on a bed. Defendant contends the fact that the victim's cousin was in between the victim and Defendant makes it less likely that she would have slept through the incident.
Defendant notes the victim gave differing answers when she was asked how many times Defendant touched her vagina. The victim stated it happened a “bunch of times” and over fifteen times. Then at trial, when Defendant's counsel was trying to get a more precise number, the victim stated it was more than 21, but that it felt “like a thousand.” Defendant also claims the victim contradicted her earlier statement when she testified at trial that her cousin was not present every time the abuse occurred.
Lastly, Defendant calls into question the victim's reaction to the abuse. Defendant notes she never tried to wake anyone up to catch Defendant in the act. Further, Defendant notes she contacted him when she was worried about her sister, even though he had been abusing her for years. Moreover, Defendant notes the victim was suspended in fourth grade for taking a pocket knife to school to protect herself from a sex offender who lived nearby. Defendant notes such behavior is not consistent with someone who was sexually abused repeatedly for four years before telling anyone. In addition, the victim spent a lot of time at Defendant's house and never said she did not want to go there and never acted differently after going there; the victim also went on a trip with Defendant, and his family.
We first note it is not surprising that the victim's story evolved to become more detailed because each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ryan
...criminal conviction may be sustained by the victim's testimony alone, even if that testimony is uncorroborated." State v. Jackson , 439 S.W.3d 276, 278 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) ; see also State v. Wren , 317 S.W.3d 111, 120 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). The jury's verdict indicates that it found Victim......
-
State v. Putney
...may be proven through circumstantial evidence. State v. Neal, 979 S.W.2d 223, 225 (Mo.App.S.D. 1998) ; see also State v. Jackson, 439 S.W.3d 276, 278 (Mo.App.E.D.2014) ("Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to support a conviction"). Circumstantial evidence means evidence that do......
-
Jackson v. State
...Corrections on one count and ten years on the other. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal in State v. Jackson, 439 S.W.3d 276 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).Movant timely filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion. Through appointed counsel, Movant filed a timely amended motion, which as......
-
Jackson v. Payne
... ... concurrent terms of fifteen years on Count I and ten years on ... Count IV.[1] Doc. [9-3] at 145-146. On August 26, 2014, ... Petitioner's convictions and sentences were affirmed on ... direct appeal in State v. Jackson, 439 S.W.3d 276 (Mo.Ct.App ... 2014). Petitioner filed a timely pro se Missouri Supreme ... Court Rule 29.15 motion. Then, through appointed counsel, ... Petitioner filed a timely amended motion. After an ... evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied ... ...