Opinion ID: 4427271
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Contents of folder properly admitted

Text: Wood claims the circuit court abused its discretion by overruling his objection to evidence of the contents of the folder containing photos of four of Wood's female, middle school students and handwritten accounts of fictional sexual encounters with 13-year-old girls. Wood argues the photos and stories were inadmissible evidence of uncharged crimes relevant only for the impermissible purpose of showing his propensity to commit the offense. It is unnecessary to address the merits of Wood's argument because a party can open the door to the admission of evidence with a theory presented in an opening statement, or through cross-examination. State v. Shockley, 410 S.W.3d 179, 194 (Mo. banc 2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted). During opening statements, defense counsel argued the contents of the folder showed Wood acted out of compulsion, not deliberation, because his drug use unleashed suppressed sexual desire for young teenage girls. Wood argues defense counsel strategically chose to discuss the folder because the circuit court overruled his motion in limine to exclude the contents of the folder from evidence. But Wood's counsel recognizes a ruling on a motion in limine is interlocutory and subject to 7 The dissenting opinion asserts it appears the circuit court skipped its duty to weigh the probative value of each additional piece of gun evidence against the inherently prejudicial nature of gun evidence. The dissenting opinion improperly presumes the circuit court failed to analyze the evidence, even though the record confirms the circuit court considered the logical and legal relevance of this evidence when it considered Wood's motion in limine and when objections were made at trial. 13 change during trial. See Hancock v. Shook, 100 S.W.3d 786, 802 (Mo. banc 2003). Despite the interlocutory nature of the ruling, counsel chose to address the folder in opening statements, and one consequence of that strategic decision was to open the door to the admission of the evidence at trial. State v. Mickle, 164 S.W.3d 33, 57 (Mo. App. 2005); see also Bucklew v. State, 38 S.W.3d 395, 401 (Mo. banc 2001) (concluding defense counsel opened the door to the admission of evidence the defendant previously committed an assault by mentioning background facts of the assault during opening statements).