Opinion ID: 2450027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The facts are sordid.

Text: K is the adopted daughter of appellant. The events in question happened approximately eight months prior to trial. At the time of trial, K was ten years old. She testified at the trial. According to K's testimony, K and her sister were sleeping in a mobile home belonging to appellant's uncle, Jerry Cooper, on May 6, 1992. K testified that while she and her sister slept, [m]y dad went in there and he sucked my boobs. The prosecutor asked K, Is that what an adult would call a breast? K answered, Yes. K testified that this occurred several times one night. K further testified that during a car ride the next day, defendant felt my boobs. K was also questioned about events that occurred at her home on the Wednesday night following the trip to Cooper's, May 6, 1992. She testified that after her mother went to work (her mother worked nights), appellant came to her bedroom and took her into the living room of their house. Appellant told her he wanted her to watch television. She gave the following testimony: Q. (Prosecutor) What happened next?
Q. Now, [K], you just said pee-pee. Would that be what an adult would call a penis? A. Yes. She also testified that appellant offered her bribesa dollar and a troll doll. She said that at first she kept quiet and didn't say anything but after appellant persisted, she finally gave up and [s]ucked his pee-pee. The prosecutor asked what happened next and K testified that [s]omething got caught in my throat and she then [w]ent to spit it out and went to bed. K's mother testified that on the following Friday, May 8, K's sister told K's mother that Daddy had put his hand on [K's] bottom. When K's mother asked K about what K's sister had said, K responded that appellant didn't do that. K's mother questioned K further and K told her about the incidents at Cooper's. Later that evening, after K and her sister had gone to bed, K's mother testified that she woke K and asked her if there was anything else K wanted to tell her. K's mother testified that K said appellant asked her to suck on his thing, or pee-pee, what [K] calls it. K's mother also said that K told her that defendant said what happened was to be a secretthat K was not to tell K's mother. On Sunday, May 10, K's mother called the Division of Family Services (DFS) child abuse hot line number and reported the incident. On Monday, May 11, K's mother went to the DFS office and met with Ruku Young, a social worker. After K's mother talked to Ms. Young, the two of them, accompanied by Deputy Sheriff Rick Williams, went to K's school. While Officer Williams and K's mother were present, Young interviewed K. Young testified about her interview with K and stated that K told her about the incidents at Cooper's. Young testified that K said appellant came and sucked her right titty. Young indicated that those were the exact words K used. Young further testified that K said she was sitting in the back seat next to Frank Redman, and he put his hand on her braon her breast underneath her bra. Young also related her conversation with K about what occurred on May 6, at K's home. Young explained that K said appellant woke her up, took her to another room and asked her to suck his private parts. Young testified that K said appellant pestered her about thirty times before she gave in and that appellant offered K a dollar to do what he asked. Young said Officer Williams asked K if appellant said anything about telling someone. Young recalled K's answer to be that appellant told K it was a secret. Officer Williams testified to essentially the same facts. Williams testified that K said appellant came into the bedroom, pulled her nightgown down and sucked on her breast. Williams did not remember if K used the word breast. The trial court relied on section 491.075 to admit the testimony of K's mother, Young and Williams concerning K's out-of-court statements. A jury found appellant guilty and the trial court sentenced him to forty years' imprisonment as a persistent sexual offender. §§ 566.060, 558.018, RSMo 1994. On appeal, the southern district affirmed, finding that the child's use of age-appropriate language to describe sexual organs was one factor, among others, supporting the trial court's decision to admit testimony concerning K's statements.