Opinion ID: 1449169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was pedophilia evidence from the 1950s or 1960s properly admitted?

Text: Tyson argues that the trial court erred in admitting, over his objections, evidence that he had sexual relations in the late 1950s or early 1960s with a 13 year old and a 15 year old. He contends that this evidence was more prejudicial than probative and had been excluded by the probate division prior to trial because it did not establish the presence of pedophilia. The State, however, convinced the trial court that the evidence was admissible at trial to impeach Tyson's expert witness's testimony that Tyson's sexual interests focused on women, not girls. Tyson argues that his expert did not offer the testimony the State alleged it needed to impeach. Tyson's arguments are not persuasive. At trial, the State inquired of his expert, What do you think is the focus of his sexual interest? The expert replied, I think the focus isand some of this is borne out in the recordyoung women, women primarily from the age 18 through early 20s or at least this was the focus. The trial court's decision to allow evidence for purposes of cross-examination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852, 869 (Mo. banc 1993). Given that Tyson's expert testified that Tyson's sexual interest was in women over the age of 18, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the State to cross-examine the expert about the evidence relating to Tyson's past sexual relations with underage girls.