State v. Prince

Decision Date05 December 2017
Docket NumberNo. SC 96524,SC 96524
Citation534 S.W.3d 813
Parties STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jordan L. PRINCE, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Prince was represented by Craig A. Johnston of the public defender's office in Columbia, (573) 777-9977.

The state was represented by Gregory L. Barnes of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, (573) 751-3321.

George W. Draper, III, Judge

Following a jury trial, Jordan L. Prince (hereinafter, "Prince") was found guilty of first-degree murder, section 565.020, RSMo 2000,1 felony abuse of a child, section 568.060, and forcible sodomy, section 566.060. Prince waived jury sentencing. The circuit court sentenced Prince to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for murder and to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for felony child abuse and forcible sodomy. Prince appeals.

Prince claims the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his juvenile adjudication for lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor and evidence pornographic websites were viewed on his cellular telephone and computer. Prince asserts none of this evidence was logically or legally relevant. This Court finds there was no abuse of discretion in admitting such evidence. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2004, Prince was fifteen years old and living in Idaho. Prince was adjudicated for committing lewd and lascivious conduct for manual to genital contact with his six-year-old niece. Prince served three years in a juvenile correctional facility for this offense.

Prince moved to Missouri and began dating Jessica Howell (hereinafter, "Howell"). Howell had an infant daughter (hereinafter, "Victim"). While they dated, Prince and Howell exchanged text messages wherein Howell expressed her desire for Prince to have sex with Victim.

On December 2, 2012, Howell and Victim, aged four-months, spent the night at Prince's home. The following morning at 11:30 a.m., Prince discovered Victim unresponsive on the living room couch. At 12:30 p.m., emergency responders were called. Prince informed the first responders he found Victim face down and not breathing. Prince stated he was the last person to see Victim alive.

Victim was taken from the home to St. Joseph's Hospital and flown to Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital. She was placed in the pediatric intensive care unit. Victim died at the hospital.

Victim suffered from multiple injuries. Victim was sexually assaulted anally. This assault caused numerous internal tears, including one internal tear approximately six centimeters in length. These internal tears resulted in Victim losing more than one-third of her blood supply. Victim was subjected to trauma resulting in multiple bruises to her body, including her face, chest, and legs, as well as a cranial laceration. While the internal injuries from the sexual assault inflicted upon Victim would have killed her, the ultimate cause of her death was intentional, sustained strangulation. Prince was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, felony abuse of a child, and forcible sodomy.

During his trial, evidence was admitted demonstrating Prince's cellular telephone and computer were used to view multiple pornographic websites, including information concerning incest. This information had been viewed, searched, or downloaded on Prince's computer up to and including the morning of December 3, 2012. Prince and Howell had multiple text messaging conversations regarding sexual contact with underage girls. Following Victim's death, there were Internet searches on his cellular telephone regarding child autopsies.

A quilt seized from the couch at Prince's home was analyzed because it appeared to have blood or bodily fluid stains on it. After analysis, ten spots of blood were discovered: two of them consistent with Prince's DNA and five consistent with Victim's DNA.

The state admitted part of Prince's Idaho juvenile record through the testimony of the police detective who interrogated Prince. The detective read substantive portions of Prince's juvenile record to the jury, including the allegations of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor, the criminal statute defining the acts as a felony under Idaho law, and the certified adjudication showing Prince admitted to committing the acts alleged.

Additionally, the state introduced into evidence videotaped clips of Prince's interrogation. During the interrogation, Prince acknowledged his juvenile record. Prince tried to explain Victim's injuries, claiming she had fallen out of bed and Prince had bounced her too hard on his knee. Prince also stated his hand accidentally might have slipped around Victim's neck while he was bouncing her.

Following trial, the jury returned its verdict, finding Prince guilty of first-degree murder, felony abuse of a child, and forcible sodomy. The jury did not recommend a sentence because Prince waived his right to jury sentencing. Accordingly, the circuit court imposed sentence.

Prince appeals his conviction and sentence. After an opinion by the court of appeals, the case was transferred to this Court. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10 ; Rule 83.02.

Discussion

Prince raises three points on appeal. Each of his points concerns the admissibility of evidence. The first two points on appeal challenge the admissibility of Prince's juvenile records from Idaho. The third point addresses the admission of pornography found on Prince's computer and cellular telephone.

Standard of Review

Evidence must be logically and legally relevant to be admissible. State v. Blurton , 484 S.W.3d 758, 777 (Mo. banc 2016). "Evidence is logically relevant if it tends to make the existence of a material fact more or less probable." State v. Collings , 450 S.W.3d 741, 756 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting State v. Anderson , 306 S.W.3d 529, 538 (Mo. banc 2010) ). Logically relevant evidence is admissible only if it is also legally relevant. Anderson , 306 S.W.3d at 538. "Legal relevance weighs the probative value of the evidence against its costs—unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or cumulativeness." Id. If the prejudice of the logically relevant evidence outweighs its probative value, it should be excluded. Id.

Generally, "proof of the commission of separate and distinct crimes is not admissible unless such proof has some legitimate tendency to directly establish the defendant's guilt of the charge for which he [or she] is on trial." State v. Vorhees , 248 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Mo. banc 2008) (quoting State v. Reese , 364 Mo. 1221, 274 S.W.2d 304, 307 (Mo. banc 1954) ). However, there are "exceptions under which otherwise inadmissible evidence may be admitted." State v. Primm , 347 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Mo. banc 2011). Evidence may be admissible if it tends to establish: "(1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other; or (5) the identity of the person charged with commission of the crime on trial." Id. Evidence "of uncharged crimes that is part of the circumstances or the sequence of events surrounding the offense charged may be admissible ‘to present a complete and coherent picture of the events that transpired.’ " State v. Schneider , 483 S.W.3d 495, 505 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting Primm , 347 S.W.3d at 70 ). Finally, "in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature involving a victim under eighteen years of age, relevant evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, is admissible for the purpose of corroborating the victim's testimony or demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit the crime with which he or she is presently charged." Mo. Const. art. I, sec 18(c).

Circuit courts retain wide discretion over issues of relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Blurton , 484 S.W.3d at 769. The circuit court's "discretion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances." Primm , 347 S.W.3d at 70 (quoting State v. Reed , 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009) ). On direct appeal, "this Court reviews the [circuit] court ‘for prejudice, not mere error, and will reverse only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial.’ " State v. Forrest , 183 S.W.3d 218, 223-24 (Mo. banc 2006) (quoting State v. Middleton , 995 S.W.2d 443, 452 (Mo. banc 1999) ).

Admissibility of Juvenile Adjudication—Logical Relevance

Prince claims the circuit court erred in admitting his Idaho juvenile record because it was not logically relevant to this case. Prince asserts his prior conduct was too remote in time, based on a dissimilar act, and technically not a criminal act because his conduct was adjudicated in juvenile court.2

Determining whether evidence is logically relevant "is a very low-level test that is easily met." State v. Sladek , 835 S.W.2d 308, 314 (Mo. banc 1992) (Thomas, J., concurring). Article I, section 18(c) of the Missouri Constitution endows circuit courts with discretion to admit "relevant evidence of prior criminal acts ... for the purpose of ... demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit the crime with which he or she is presently charged." The circuit court admitted Prince's Idaho juvenile court record regarding Prince's lewd and lascivious conduct with his six-year-old niece.3

Prince's arguments that his past conduct in Idaho was too remote in time, a dissimilar act, and not a criminal act because it was part of his juvenile record are not persuasive. First, remoteness in time ordinarily affects only the weight of the evidence, and whether it is unduly prejudicial in light of its probative value, which pertains to legal relevance and not logical relevance. State v. Shaw , 847 S.W.2d 768, 778 (Mo. banc 1993). The constitutional amendment relaxed/diminished this weight test by stating courts "may exclude relevant evidence of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • State v. Wood
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 16 Julio 2019
    ...to disputed facts pertaining to the murder charge."Evidence must be logically and legally relevant to be admissible." State v. Prince , 534 S.W.3d 813, 817 (Mo. banc 2017). "Evidence is logically relevant if it tends to make the existence of a material fact more or less probable." Id. (inte......
  • State v. Minor
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 14 Junio 2022
    ...I, section 18(c) dealt with evidence of prior adjudicated convictions. See, e.g., Williams , 548 S.W.3d at 288 ; see also State v. Prince , 534 S.W.3d 813, 820 (Mo. banc 2017). This evidence manifested as exhibits and testimony reciting the existence of a prior conviction or an admission of......
  • State v. Lutes, WD 80030
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 19 Junio 2018
    ...unless this court finds that the trial court’s exercise of discretion was clearly against the logic of the circumstances. State v. Prince , 534 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Mo. banc 2017). "[I]f reasonable persons can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be ......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 1 Mayo 2018
    ...plea under article I, section 18(c), like all claims of evidentiary error, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Prince , 534 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Mo. banc 2017). The circuit court's evidentiary ruling "will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Twenty-Nine Photographs and the Deterioration of the Missouri Relevance Rule.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 85 No. 3, June 2020
    • 22 Junio 2020
    ...opinion). (165.) Id. (166.) Id. (167.) Id. (168.) Id. (169.) Id. at 591 (Stith, J., dissenting). (170.) See, e.g., State v. Prince, 534 S.W.3d 813, 817-18 (Mo. 2017) (en banc); State v. Anderson, 76 S.W.3d 275, 276 (Mo. 2002) (en (171.) Anderson, 716 S.W.3d at 276. (172.) Id. (173.) See, e.......

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