State v. Mateo

• Decision Date: 15 February 2011
• Docket Number: No. WD 71117.,WD 71117.
• Citation: 335 S.W.3d 529
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent,v.Wilber MATEO, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

335 S.W.3d 529

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Wilber MATEO, Appellant.

No. WD 71117.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 15, 2011.

Ruth B. Sanders, Appellate District Defender, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.Chris Koster, Attorney General, Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.Before Division I: MARK D. PFEIFFER, Presiding Judge, and THOMAS H. NEWTON and ALOK AHUJA, Judges.MARK D. PFEIFFER, Presiding Judge.

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County (“trial court”), Wilber Mateo (“Mateo”) was convicted on three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, section 568.045 RSMo Cum.Supp.2005, three counts of abuse of a child, section 568.060,¹ and one count of first-degree assault, section 565.050 RSMo Cum. Supp 2010. The child victim is Mateo's then girlfriend's three-year-old son (“T.B.”). Mateo was sentenced to twelve years for the assault conviction and seven years for each of the remaining six counts of endangering the welfare of a child and abuse of a child.² Mateo appeals and argues that: (1) the trial court erred in overruling Mateo's motion to suppress his custodial interrogation statement; and (2) the trial court plainly erred in permitting the testimony of the minor child victim. We disagree and affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, ³ the evidence presented at trial established the following:

On Sunday, April 6, 2008, T.B.'s father, M.B., left T.B. with the child's mother (“Mother”),⁴ pursuant to a joint custody agreement. At that time, T.B. had no injuries except for a scratch on his leg and two small bruises on his lower back. When Mother changed T.B. into his pajamas later that evening, she did not notice any injuries to T.B. other than the scratch and two bruises.

The next day, April 7, 2008, Mother had to work from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Mother's then boyfriend, Mateo, agreed to watch his two-year-old daughter and T.B. while Mother was at work. While at work, Mother received two phone calls from Mateo. The first call was approximately thirty minutes after Mateo and the children dropped Mother off at work. Mateo informed Mother that T.B. had had an “accident,” which Mother presumed to mean that T.B. had wet his pants. Mateo advised Mother that he would give T.B. a bath. The second call came around noon. Mateo informed Mother that T.B. had fallen down outside while playing and that he had scratches on his hands and a red mark on his face.

When Mateo picked Mother up from work at approximately 3:30 p.m., Mother immediately noticed the injuries on T.B.'s face, but thought nothing of them due to Mateo's previous explanations by phone. Later that evening, Mother noticed that there were additional injuries on T.B.'s buttocks that had not been there earlier that morning. A couple of hours later, Mother noticed that the injuries to the victim's buttocks had gotten redder and started to blister. At bedtime, T.B. first complained to Mother that it was painful when he tried to sit down. Mother inspected T.B.'s bottom and saw more redness and blistering. She also noticed that some of the blisters had opened up. Because the injuries seemed to be getting worse, Mother took T.B. to the hospital.

While at the hospital, Mother noticed additional injuries that T.B. had suffered, including bruising on T.B.'s back, chest, and legs and scratches on his ribcage. T.B. was further examined by Angela Rabbit, a child-abuse pediatrician (“Dr.Rabbit”). Dr. Rabbit testified as to the many injuries she discovered during her examination of T.B., including: swelling on the left side of his scalp, abrasions and bruising on his face and neck, a pattern bruise with four distinct marks on his right cheek and under his chin—all consistent with punch or slap marks; redness and petechial bruising on the web of his finger—consistent with a defensive injury or sucking on the hand; linear bruising on his arm—consistent with being grabbed tightly; and bruising, lacerations, and tears on his genital area—all consistent with either suction, pulling, or pinching the genitals. Dr. Rabbit testified at trial that these injuries, when viewed collectively, were inconsistent with a single fall onto the grass as alleged by Mateo.

Dr. Rabbit testified further that the blisters on T.B.'s buttocks were caused by second-degree burns. The burns and the gradual worsening of T.B.'s condition were consistent with contact with hot water. A crime scene technician testified that the water temperature from the faucet in Mateo's bathtub reached a maximum of 130° after running for three to five minutes. Water with a temperature of 130° would have caused second-degree burns in less than fifteen seconds. Dr. Rabbit testified that, in her opinion, T.B.'s injuries were the result of abuse.

During an interview with Kristen Gilgour at the Child Protection Center, T.B. told Ms. Gilgour that he did not want to sit because his bottom hurt. He stated that his mother was at work when his bottom was injured and that Mateo was there with him. In response to Ms. Gilgour's question whether someone would get in trouble if he told her why his bottom hurt, T.B. said that Mateo would get in trouble. T.B. also told Ms. Gilgour that Mateo poured hot water on his face and penis and that he was sitting in the bathtub when Mateo filled the tub with hot water which got on his bottom.

Based on this evidence, police detectives Steffan Roetheli (“Roetheli”) and David Albers (“Albers”) brought Mateo into the police station early the next morning. Shortly after the interview began, the detectives read Mateo his Miranda rights. Thereafter, Mateo made several incriminating statements to the detectives. Mateo later filed a motion to suppress his statements made to detectives during the custodial interview. Mateo's motion to suppress was overruled by the trial court after a pre-trial hearing on the matter. Consequently, Detective Roetheli testified at trial regarding Mateo's statements to the detectives during their custodial interview.

Mateo's case was tried before a jury on April 6–9, 2009. The jury found Mateo guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Mateo to seven years on each count of endangering the welfare of a child (Counts I, II, and III), seven years on each count of abuse of a child (Counts IV, V, and VI), and twelve years for first-degree assault (Count VII), with all sentences to run concurrently. This timely appeal follows.

Point I

In his first point on appeal, Mateo argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and in permitting Detective Roetheli to testify as to statements made by Mateo while being interrogated because Mateo argues that his statements were obtained in violation of his rights to be free from self-incrimination, to counsel, and to due process of law.⁵ Specifically, Mateo alleges his rights were violated when the detectives continued to question him after he claims he invoked his right to counsel because he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his previously invoked right to counsel. We disagree.

Standard of Review

When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, this court may reverse only if the ruling is clearly erroneous. State v. Shaon, 145 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Mo.App. W.D.2004). “If the ruling is plausible, in light of the record viewed in its entirety, we will not reverse, even if we would have weighed the evidence differently.” State v. Harris, 305 S.W.3d 482, 485 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). We review all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the challenged ruling and determine whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Id.

Facts Underlying the Motion to Suppress

Mateo filed a pre-trial motion to suppress statements he made to detectives after he was arrested. The trial court held a pre-trial hearing on Mateo's motion, at which Detectives Roetheli and Albers testified. Evidence presented during the hearing showed that on April 8, 2008, Mateo was arrested and taken to the police station to be interviewed. When the detectives walked into the room to question Mateo, he announced, “I'm a complete criminal now.” Mateo then told the detectives that he had given T.B. two baths that day—one shortly after they dropped T.B.'s mother off at work because T.B. had urinated on himself in the car, and one after T.B. had fallen while playing outside. At this point, the detectives started to advise Mateo of his Miranda⁶ rights.

While Roetheli was reading him the warnings, Mateo interrupted and asked “if there was an attorney there for him” or if an attorney was “available” to him. Albers told Mateo to wait until Roetheli had finished reading his Miranda rights and then they would answer any questions Mateo had. When Roetheli finished reading, he gave Mateo a Miranda waiver form and asked Mateo to read it aloud. When finished reading the form, Mateo was given the opportunity to ask questions.⁷ Mateo then asked, “Do I need an attorney?” Roetheli told Mateo that if he didn't have anything to hide, he shouldn't need an attorney, but it was his right to have an attorney if he so desired. Mateo did not respond to Roetheli's statement nor did he mention the word “attorney” again until sometime later. Instead, Mateo put on his coat, propped his head on the table with his hand, and told the detectives that he had seen what happened to T.B. and then started describing his past criminal convictions.

After talking about his personal life for about twenty-five minutes, the detectives began questioning Mateo about T.B.'s injuries. During these questions, Mateo did not request an attorney. After Mateo described the day's events, the detectives left the room to get him a snack. When they returned, Mateo asked for a telephone to call an attorney. The detectives understood this as an invocation of...