T.R.T. v. Juvenile Officer
| Decision Date | 14 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | WD 84167 |
| Citation | 641 S.W.3d 263 |
| Parties | In the Interest of: T.R.T., Appellant, v. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Carol Jansen, for Appellant.
Lori A. Fluegel, for Respondent.
Division One: W. Douglas Thomson, Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Karen King Mitchell, Judge
W. DOUGLAS THOMSON, JUDGE
T.R.T. ("Juvenile") appeals from the trial court's judgment adopting the Jackson County Family Court commissioner's finding and recommendation that Juvenile committed what would have been, if he were an adult, the felony of statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.062.1 Juvenile was placed on probation under the supervision of the Family Court. In his three points on appeal, Juvenile challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay statements. We affirm.
Juvenile, age thirteen at the time of the offense, was in the bathroom helping his three-year-old cousin, J.B. ("Victim"), after Victim used the restroom. During this time, Juvenile's adoptive mother ("Mother")2 heard a sharp cry from Victim in the bathroom. Seconds later, Victim ran out of the bathroom to Mother and gave her a hug. Mother told him to put his pants on and Victim left the room.
Moments later, Victim returned clothed, but now with a heavily soiled diaper. When Mother took Victim to the bedroom to change him, Victim told her, "[Juvenile] hurt my booty." Mother noticed that Victim's anus and surrounding skin appeared swollen and red and that Victim appeared to be in pain. Juvenile was standing in the bedroom doorway at the time and heard Victim's statement that Juvenile hurt him. Mother asked Victim how Juvenile hurt him, to which Juvenile interjected, stating that he spanked Victim because "he wouldn't be still for me to put his diaper on." Victim stated immediately thereafter, "[Juvenile] put two fingers in my booty." In response, Juvenile said his finger accidentally got caught when he was pulling up Victim's diaper. Upon further conversation with Juvenile, Juvenile told Mother Juvenile stated further that "[s]omething dark in me made me do it." Mother called the police.
When Independence Police Officer Josko Wrabec ("Officer Wrabec") arrived, Mother told Juvenile to "tell the police officer what you did." Juvenile responded stating, "I did it," but would not say what it was that he did. Mother then explained to Officer Wrabec that Juvenile touched Victim. Juvenile repeatedly stated to Officer Wrabec, "I did it" and that he was sorry. Juvenile requested to be removed from Mother's residence and said he wanted to go "home." Officer Wrabec separated Juvenile from Mother and asked Juvenile, Juvenile responded, "I did what she's saying I did, and I'm sorry." Juvenile was transported to police headquarters. Upon arrival, Juvenile and Mother were placed in a room together. There, Mother asked Juvenile, "[y]ou hurt him ... [w]hy?" Juvenile stated that he stopped when Victim cried.
A petition was filed by the juvenile officer charging Juvenile with having deviate sexual intercourse with Victim, a minor less than age 12,3 by inserting his fingers into Victim's anus.4 The petition alleged Juvenile's conduct if committed by an adult would warrant a charge of felony statutory sodomy in the first degree in violation of Section 566.062.
An adjudication hearing was held on July 31, 2020, during which the Family Court received evidence in the form of testimony from Mother and Officer Wrabec. Thereafter, the court entered an order finding the evidence proves the allegations of the petition beyond a reasonable doubt and set the matter for a disposition hearing. On October 26, 2020, the Family Court commissioner issued findings and recommendations placing Juvenile on probation under the supervision of the Family Court. The Family Court commissioner's findings and recommendations were adopted as the circuit court's final judgment on November 3, 2020.
Juvenile appeals.
"Juvenile proceedings are reviewed ‘in the same manner as other court-tried cases.’ " In the Interest of D.C.M. , 578 S.W.3d 776, 786 (Mo. banc 2019) (quoting C.G.M., II v. Juvenile Officer , 258 S.W.3d 879, 882 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ). "This Court will affirm a judgment in a juvenile proceeding unless it is not supported by evidence, is against the weight of evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law." Id. (citing In re A.S.W. , 226 S.W.3d 151, 153 (Mo. banc 2007) ); see also Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). "The credibility of the witnesses and the weight their testimony should be given is a matter to be determined at the hearing by the circuit court, ‘which is free to believe none, part, or all of their testimony." Id. (quoting C.L.B. v. Juvenile Officer , 22 S.W.3d 233, 236 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) ).
"For a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, ‘[t]he evidence, including all reasonable inferences therefrom, is considered in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregarding all contrary inferences.’ " Id. (quoting State v. Pike , 162 S.W.3d 464, 473-74 (Mo. banc 2005) ). "When a juvenile is alleged to have committed an act that would be a criminal offense if committed by an adult, the standard of proof, like that in criminal trials, is beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (citing C.L.B. v. Juvenile Officer , 22 S.W.3d at 239 ). "Consequently, we must determine ‘whether there is sufficient evidence from which the fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." I.D. v. Juvenile Officer , 611 S.W.3d 869, 873 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (quoting J.N.C.B. v. Juvenile Officer , 403 S.W.3d 120, 124 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) ).
"A trial court's decision to admit hearsay evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Gott , 523 S.W.3d 572, 576 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017) (citing State v. Hosier , 454 S.W.3d 883, 896 (Mo. banc 2015) ). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision "is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration." Id. (quoting State v. Gonzales , 153 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Mo. banc 2005) ). "We will not reverse for an error in the admission of evidence unless ‘there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial.’ " Id. (citation omitted).
Juvenile raises three points on appeal. In his first point, Juvenile argues that that the Family Court erred in finding him guilty because there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a "sexual act" by inserting his finger in Victim's anus. In his second point, Juvenile contends that the court erred in finding him guilty because there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he inserted his finger in Victim's anus "for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person or for the purpose of terrorizing the victim." In his third point, Juvenile argues that the court abused its discretion in admitting Victim's hearsay statements that "[Juvenile] hurt my booty" and "[Juvenile] put two fingers in my booty" under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. For the sake of clarity and the ease of analysis, we have chosen to address Juvenile's third point first. Additionally, because Juvenile's first two points focus on the sufficiency of the evidence, we address these points together.
In his third point on appeal, Juvenile claims that the court abused its discretion in admitting Mother's testimony that Victim told her after the incident that "[Juvenile] put two fingers in my booty" and "hurt my booty." Specifically, Juvenile asserts that Victim's statements to Mother did not fall within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule because: (1) Victim was "relatively calm" at the time of disclosure; (2) Victim made the statements after the independent intervening event of soiling his diaper; and (3) enough time had elapsed for the three-year-old Victim to fabricate his statement to explain why he soiled his diaper. We disagree.
"A hearsay statement is any out-of-court statement that is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that depends on the veracity of the statement for its value." State v. Kemp , 212 S.W.3d 135, 146 (Mo. banc 2007) (quoting State v. Forrest , 183 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Mo. banc 2006) ). "Hearsay statements are, as a rule, inadmissible." State v. Gray , 347 S.W.3d 490, 500 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (citing State v. Douglas , 131 S.W.3d 818, 823 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) ). "In order to be admissible, a hearsay statement must fall under an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence." State v. Thomas , 272 S.W.3d 421, 428 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (citing State v. Kemp , 212 S.W.3d at 146 ). "The excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay applies when: (1) a startling event or condition occurs; (2) the statement is made while the declarant is still under the stress of the excitement caused by the event and has not had an opportunity to fabricate the story; and (3) the statement relates to the startling event." State v. Gray , 347 S.W.3d at 500 (quoting State v. Hedges , 193 S.W.3d 784, 788 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) ).
Courts have determined that excited utterances are inherently trustworthy because the startling nature of the event is speaking through the person instead of the person speaking about the event. Because the statement is spontaneous and made under the influence of events, the statement is assumed trustworthy because it is unadorned by thoughtful reflection. Among the factors to be considered in determining whether an excited utterance exists are [1] the time between...
To continue reading
Request your trial