State v. Shrout

Decision Date25 February 2014
Docket NumberNo. SD 32333.,SD 32333.
Citation419 S.W.3d 209
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Robert Emil SHROUT, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Timothy R. Cisar and Grant W. Smith, The Cisar Law, Firm, P.C, Lake Ozark, Missouri, Attorneys for Appellant.

Chris Koster, Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Rodewald, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, Missouri, Attorneys for Respondent.

GARY W. LYNCH, J.

Robert Emil Shrout (Defendant) appeals his conviction for involuntary manslaughter in the second degree, see section 565.024.3.1 He raises four issues on appeal: (1) that he was not subject to a duty of care to the victim; (2) that, even if he was subject to such a duty, the evidence was insufficient to show that he breached that duty; (3) that section 565.024 is void for vagueness because it does not define “criminal negligence”; and (4) that both he and his wife cannot be found guilty of the second-degree involuntary manslaughter of the same person. Finding no merit in any of Defendant's claims, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background2

Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, see State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Mo. banc 2005), the following evidence was adduced at trial.

Aaron Johnson (“Victim”) was the son of Defendant's wife, Ronda Shrout. 3 Victim had a twin brother. Following the separation of their natural parents, both boys went to live with their father. In 1994, both boys were removed from their father's home and taken into protective custody. George Stafford was guardian ad litem for both Victim and his brother throughout the time they were under the jurisdiction of the juvenile division of the circuit court. Initially, the boys were placed in various foster homes but were eventually serially moved to a number of group homes. Victim and his twin brother were considered mentally retarded and had behavioral issues; it was their behavioral issues that initially prompted the juvenile division to assume jurisdiction.

Victim and his brother were awarded approximately $100,000 as a result of a settlement in a lawsuit concerning abuse at a group home.4 Victim's share of the settlementfunds was set up in an annuity to be paid out to him on a monthly basis beginning at age twenty-one, with guaranteed payments for thirty years, and payable to his estate upon his death. Following that award and noting that [t]he State awarded my sons close to 500,000 apiece for their abuse[,] Ronda requested that she and Defendant be awarded custody of both boys and be granted access to the money in order to “pay off [their] home and then add two more rooms.”

Just before Defendant and Ronda sought custody of Victim and his brother, Stafford had decided to recommend that Ronda's parental rights be terminated, as the boys were nearing eighteen years old and neither Ronda nor Defendant had previously taken any interest in the boys. Stafford was suspicious of the Shrouts' sudden interest in Victim and his brother, as well as their interest in the settlement money. His concerns were somewhat alleviated when Ronda and Defendant continued to come to scheduled court hearings; however, he remained “leery” of the home circumstances. During meetings with Defendant and his wife, Stafford discussed at length the boys' special needs and the fact that resources would continue to be available to assist the Shrouts with the boys' care even after they turned eighteen.

Once in the care of Defendant and his wife, a transition which apparently occurred sometime in 2004, Victim had trouble maintaining a healthy weight. On August 26, 2004, Victim weighed 112 pounds. When admitted to Lakeland Regional Hospital on November 17, 2004, Victim weighed 98 pounds. During that hospital stay, it was noted that Victim was 24 pounds underweight and malnourished, and Victim's access to food was questioned. Victim remained in the hospital for eight days and, upon discharge, he weighed 109 pounds. Approximately seven months later, around July 2005, Victim was readmitted to the hospital and weighed 95 pounds. Again, Victim was found to be malnourished.

When he first moved in with Defendant and Ronda, Victim was utilizing the behavioral services of Pathways Community Behavior Healthcare. When Victim's case manager left that organization in December 2004, rather than see a new case manager, Defendant and Ronda requested that Victim's involvement at Pathways be stopped and his case closed.

According to Defendant's brother, Donald Shrout, Jr., when Victim and his twin brother first moved in with Defendant and his wife, they seemed like pretty nice kids[,] and they had no noticeable injuries or illnesses. However, during a visit in early 2005—approximately one year before Victim's death—Donald noticed that Victim appeared “real sickly”; Victim “was in his room in the corner and just in his briefs, underwear, and he was curled up in a corner [.] The room was colder than the rest of the house. Victim “didn't have much weight on him[.] When Donald asked Victim what he was doing, Victim replied, “I'm in trouble.” Donald noticed a five-gallon bucket in the room, which Victim used as a toilet, and “just ... didn't like ... the way I saw him and the way they was treating him.” Approximately one month before that visit, Donald saw Victim duct-taped to a chair in the kitchen. Victim was not allowed out of his bedroom when Donald was at the trailer. Donald “knew [Victim] was being abused” by Defendant and Ronda. Donald told Defendant and Ronda that [t]his has gone too far” and that he “was going to go call the authorities and do something about it.” Defendant and Ronda told Donald “to leave and don't never come back.” According to Donald, [e]very time somebody would say something about something, they weren't allowed to come back over there, and that was the end of it.” Shortly thereafter, Donald received a subpoena “for an ex parte” to keep him and his wife off the property.

On January 24, 2006, emergency medical personnel received a call reporting an unconscious, unresponsive, eighteen-year-old male and responded to the home of Defendant and Ronda. Emergency workers found Victim on the floor of his bedroom, which contained only a mattress, a five-gallon bucket filled with urine and feces, and a blue tarp covering the floor. Both the floor and the mattress were saturated with urine. The room was noticeably colder than the rest of the house, and the window had no glass in the lower pane, which was instead covered with wire. According to Defendant, the window had been broken “about two weeks” prior to Victim's death, and Defendant did not replace the window “because [Victim] would just break it again.” There was an alarm on the bedroom door that would sound when Victim left the room.

Victim's body was cold to the touch and felt “like he had been put in a freezer.” Victim was not breathing and had no pulse. Emergency medical personnel could not establish an airway and failed in an attempt to put in an oral pharyngeal airway because Victim's “neck was very rigid and [they] just could not get it to turn.” Such rigidity is typical in either arthritic patients or those already in rigor mortis. Ultimately, emergency workers were unable to revive Victim. The coroner on the scene felt that Victim's death “wasn't recent.” Victim had unusual bruising on his stomach and a bruise around his left eye, as well as numerous sores and scratches all over his body. Socks had been duct-taped to Victim's hands, and the duct tape was wrapped so tightly that paramedics could not remove it without scissors. Victim was removed from the home on a backboard through the window.

Emergency personnel spoke with Defendant and Ronda about Victim's medications and saw numerous pill bottles with dates that were “significantly past [.] Victim's pharmacy later confirmed that Victim's medications had not been dispensed “for quite some time.” The day before Victim's death, he had a previously scheduled doctor's appointment, but Ronda called and cancelled it.

At the hospital, where emergency personnel apparently had taken Victim, Ronda told Officer George Young, an investigator with the Laclede County Sheriff's Office, that she had given Victim “liquefied oatmeal” between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. that morning. At around noon, she heard a “thump” and, when she entered Victim's room, she found Victim face down on the floor. She yelled for Defendant, who came to check on Victim. Defendant then called 911. He also contacted his father-in-law, who in turn contacted Ada Shrout, Defendant's sister-in-law. When Ada, a certified nurse's aide who lived “across the field” from Defendant and Ronda, entered Victim's room, Ronda was the only other person present and no one was performing CPR on Victim. Ada began performing CPR on Victim; while she was working on Victim, green mucus began coming out of Victim's mouth.

After speaking with Defendant and Ronda at the hospital, Officer Young went to the Shrouts' home, where he was met by Defendant and Ronda. When Officer Young asked to see Victim's room, he discovered it was not as it had been described to him. Officer Young found that the broken window had been fixed, the tarp and mattress removed because of the odor they were causing, and the five-gallon bucket emptied and cleaned. The floor appeared to have been washed. He also noticed that the closet door had screws going through the doorway into the door jamb that would prevent the door from opening.

Dr. Paul Spence conducted Victim's autopsy the day after his death.5 Dr. Spence found all five lobes of both of Victim's lungs to be “purple and bloody” instead of a healthy pink. The lungs “were filled with a lot of fluid and very firm when [he] touched them[,] and there were small nodules, or points of infection,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Evans
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 2015
    ...not timely raised at trial is not preserved for appellate review. State v. Green, 307 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Mo.App.2010) ; see also State v. Shrout, 419 S.W.3d 209, 215 (Mo. banc 2013). Issues that were not preserved may be reviewed for plain error only, which requires the reviewing court to fin......

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