State v. Jackson

Decision Date01 April 2014
Docket NumberNo. ED 99519.,ED 99519.
Citation426 S.W.3d 717
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mark G. JACKSON, Appellant.

426 S.W.3d 717

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Mark G. JACKSON, Appellant.

No. ED 99519.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Two.

April 1, 2014.


[426 S.W.3d 718]


Amy M. Bartholow, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Chris Koster, Attorney General, Todd T. Smith, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.


ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Judge.

Mark Jackson (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court convicting him of forcible rape, Section 566.030 RSMo 20001, forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, and first-degree domestic assault, Section 565.072, following a jury trial. Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in permitting Dr. Rex Hudson and Nurse Cherie Blaesinger to testify as to the statements L.R. (“Victim”) made to them about the incident. We affirm.

In the light most favorable to the verdict, the following evidence was adduced at trial: Defendant and Victim began dating in February 2011, and Defendant moved into Victim's house shortly thereafter. On March 19, 2011, Victim picked Defendant up from work in the afternoon and together they drove around buying crack cocaine and smoking it at various houses. Later that afternoon, they began to argue, and Victim drove to the hospital and threatened to check herself in as a patient. Defendant left the car and started walking, only to be picked up by Victim a short while later. Then they went back to her house.

Once at Victim's house, Defendant told Victim to take off her clothes because they were going to bed. As soon as Victim complied, Defendant started hitting her in the face with his closed fists. Victim claims Defendant made her give him oral sex, even though she resisted. Victim began throwing up and while doing so, Defendant pulled her hair, choked her, and had sex with her. After Defendant had sex with Victim, he continued to hit her. When Defendant finally stopped, they were in bed, and Defendant told Victim he had every intention of killing her that night. Soon after, they went to sleep.

The next morning Victim went to a neighbor's house and called 911. An ambulance arrived within ten minutes, and the police arrested Defendant who was hiding in the basement of Victim's home. Victim was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome and stayed at the hospital for four days. When Victim was released, she lived with her sister for a few weeks because she could not walk without stumbling or falling.

Defendant was charged and convicted of forcible rape, forcible sodomy, and first-degree domestic assault and was sentenced as a persistent offender to two concurrent twenty-five year terms of imprisonment for forcible rape and forcible sodomy and a consecutive fifteen year term of imprisonment for the domestic assault. This appeal follows.

[426 S.W.3d 719]

In his sole point on appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in permitting Dr. Hudson and Blaesinger to testify as to the hearsay statements Victim made to them about the incident because they were not related to her diagnosis or treatment and improperly bolstered her credibility as a witness. We disagree.

The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion. State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009) (citing State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008)). This standard gives the trial court broad leeway in choosing to admit evidence; therefore, an exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d at 426–27. In evidentiary matters, this court will reverse only if the error was prejudicial such that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial. State v. McMillin, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Gott
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 5, 2017
    ...same matter, and was subject to cross-examination because the primary defects in hearsay testimony are alleviated." State v. Jackson, 426 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Mo. App. 2014).4 Defendant testified that he swam to shore and waited there 10-20 minutes until Carter and Dean returned with law enforc......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 2015
    ...is because the person who made the offered statement is not under oath or subject to cross-examination." State v. Jackson, 426 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Mo.App.E.D.2014). "Accordingly, prejudice will not be found from the admission of hearsay testimony where the declarant was also a witness at trial......
  • State v. Ralph
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 6, 2017
    ...was improper hearsay, we will only reverse the conviction if a defendant can prove both error and prejudice. State v. Jackson , 426 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). Here, Ralph asserts on appeal that prejudicial error resulted when Officer Nolan testified that he "learned" during booki......
  • State v. Culpepper
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 9, 2016
    ...same matter, and was subject to cross-examination because the primary defects in hearsay testimony are alleviated." State v. Jackson , 426 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Mo.App. E.D. 2014). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the identification testimony of Duck. Point II is denied. ......
  • 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