Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher P. BORST, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-07-18
Citations: 202 S.W.3d 629
Docket Number: No. WD 64849
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher P. BORST, Appellant.
Judges: Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and HOWARD and HOLLIGER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 202
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher P. BORST, Appellant.
No. WD 64849.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
July 18, 2006.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 29, 2006.
Application for Transfer Denied Oct. 31, 2006.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
John P. O’Connor and Michael L. Belan-cio, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.
Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and HOWARD and HOLLIGER, JJ.

Opinion:
Order
PER CURIAM.
Christopher P. Borst ("Borst") appeals his convictions of two counts of statutory sodomy and two counts of incest. He raises the following four points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in not allowing Borst to impeach Shelby Magnuson ("Shelby") as to her five prior false allegations of abuse and in excluding evidence of Shelby's knowledge that her brother was convicted of abusing his daughters prior to the instant complaint of abuse; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to use statements of K.B. made to others because the State failed to disclose the particulars of statements sufficiently in advance of the proceedings, and/or the use of section 491.075 testimony violates Borst's right to confront his accusers, and/or the section 491.075 testimony should not have been permitted because the interviews that elicited said testimony were unduly suggestive, and/or the playing of the videotape was in violation of section 492.304 as it was based on suggestive questioning; (3) the trial court erred in not allowing Borst's expert testimony at trial, where said expert testimony would have demonstrated that the interview techniques that were actually utilized by DFS and Julie Donelon were biased, leading, repetitive, suggestive and contaminated; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in not granting Borst a continuance of the trial setting to allow for testing of the handwriting and ink in Shelby Borst's journal.
Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.