State v. Lewis, 58879
| Decision Date | 28 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 58879,58879 |
| Citation | 809 S.W.2d 878 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lyn L. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, for defendant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant, Lyn Lewis, was convicted by a jury of rape in violation of § 566.030 RSMo Cum.Supp.1990. The trial court sentenced defendant as a persistent sexual offender, § 558.018 RSMo Cum.Supp.1990, to a term of forty years imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The sentence is consecutive to a previous sentence in another rape related offense. On appeal defendant claims the trial court erred: (1) in overruling his objections and admitting into evidence pursuant to § 491.075 RSMo 1986 hearsay statements attributed to a young child; and (2) in giving Instruction No. 4, patterned after MAI-CR 3d 302.04, defining reasonable doubt. We affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence at trial established the following. On October 29, 1989, Marilyn was baby-sitting her nieces, T.M., age two, and F.R., overnight. Defendant, a friend of Marilyn, was also staying at the apartment. Around midnight Richard, Marilyn's boyfriend, heard a muffled sound. He went into the bedroom where T.M. and F.R. were sleeping. Richard observed defendant pulling his sweatpants up. He also observed defendant was sexually aroused. Richard saw T.M. laying on the bed with her clothing substantially removed and a towel across her face. Richard summoned Marilyn. Marilyn discovered blood and broken skin between T.M.'s legs. Marilyn asked T.M. why she was crying. T.M. replied: "He made me pull my pants off," pointing to defendant. Defendant ran when Richard told Marilyn to call the police.
Marilyn took T.M. to St. Louis Children's Hospital. T.M. told the doctor defendant made her pull her pants down. Dr. Monafo testified he was unable to perform a detailed examination of T.M. because of the amount of blood present. From his limited examination, Dr. Monafo concluded T.M.'s injuries were consistent with blunt trauma to the vaginal area. On November 16, 1989, Dr. Nash examined T.M. Dr. Nash testified T.M. sustained internal injury consistent with penetration.
During trial the state called T.M. as a witness. She testified she was now three years old. However, she was unable to remember the rape. Defendant made no attempt to cross-examine T.M. The trial court made a finding that T.M. was unavailable due to her lack of memory. Hearsay statements regarding T.M.'s identification of defendant were admitted into evidence though the testimony of Richard, Marilyn and T.M.'s mother. T.M. identified defendant on three separate occasions: (1) immediately, in the apartment to Marilyn and Richard; (2) later that night to Dr. Monafo; and (3) the next morning to her mother.
In his first point relied upon, defendant alleges the trial court erred in admitting into evidence hearsay statements testified to by Richard, Marilyn and mother because § 491.075 RSMo 1986 is unconstitutional on its face and defendant was denied his right to confrontation because T.M. was unavailable for cross-examination. The first identification statement testified to by Marilyn and the statements testified to by Richard and mother were not contemporaneously objected to. Furthermore, in his motion for new trial defendant merely complained of the indicia of reliability sufficient to warrant admission of a portion of the hearsay statements. Therefore, there was no timely constitutional challenge and no preserved error. Defendant requests plain error review pursuant to Rule 30.20.
Under plain error review, defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the trial court committed an error which "so substantially impacted upon his rights that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if the error is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carson
...State v. Depriest, 822 S.W.2d 488, 493 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Jamerson, 809 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Lewis, 809 S.W.2d 878, 879-80 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Lucas, 809 S.W.2d 54, 57 (Mo.App.1991), overruled on other grounds, McDaris v. State, 843 S.W.2d 369, 373 (Mo. banc 1992......
-
State v. Walden
...(Mo.App.1992). The admission of hearsay evidence is not plain error if no objection is made at trial to its admission. State v. Lewis, 809 S.W.2d 878, 879 (Mo.App.1991). Additionally, the evidence of Walden's guilt was overwhelming and there was proof of his guilt independent of the hearsay......
-
State v. Campbell
...a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice rests on Defendant. State v. Cole, 844 S.W.2d 493, 500 (Mo.App.1992); State v. Lewis, 809 S.W.2d 878, 879 (Mo. App.1991). The determination of whether plain error exists must be based on a consideration of the individual facts and circumstances......
-
State v. Wade, 17654
...S.W.2d 51, 62-63 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 1755, 100 L.Ed.2d 217 (1988). As was stated in State v. Lewis, 809 S.W.2d 878 (Mo.App.1991), where defendant made an identical attack on MAI-CR 3d 302.04, based on Cage, "We have no authority to consider the request. A......