Opinion ID: 2382089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Excerpt of Videotape of Demetrius's Statement

Text: Lyons alleges that the trial court improperly admitted an excerpt from the videotaped statement that Demetrius, Bridgette's seven-year old son, gave to the police the day of the murders. The admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Mo. banc 1992). Demetrius testified for the State during the guilt phase. He testified that after hearing one shot, he went up the stairs to the kitchen, passing Lyons going down to the basement with a shotgun. After finding his grandmother Evelyn on the kitchen floor, he ran up to the second floor. He heard two more shots. His sister Deonandrea joined him moments later. While hiding with her underneath a bed, Demetrius heard Lyons come upstairs. The prosecutor asked Demetrius if he remembered hearing anybody speaking while he was under the bed. Demetrius replied that he did not, that the next thing he remembered was hearing the closing of a door. Four years earlier, on the day of the murders, Demetrius told Officer Phillip Gregory during a videotaped interview that he had heard Lyons say something: Demetrius: Me and Deonandrea was hiding under the bed because I thought he was gonna shoot us. Me and Deonandrea hiding under the bed, so ... he came in the room and said Where them kids at? Then when he couldn't find us... he left. Officer Gregory: So you guys hid under the bed? Demetrius: Mmm-hmm ... he couldn't find us. The State sought to play these twenty seconds of videotape during the penalty phase as a prior inconsistent statement. Lyons objected on the grounds that a proper foundation had not been laid. He also objected to the youth of Demetrius at the time he gave the statement. Lyons's objection was overruled, and the videotape was shown to the jury.
Whether an inconsistency exists between trial testimony and statements made prior to trial is to be determined by the whole impression and effect of what has been said and done. State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 9 (Mo. banc 1992). Lyons does not question whether Demetrius's out-of-court statement was inconsistent with his trial testimony. This Court, therefore, assumes the inconsistency for the purpose of evaluating Lyons's claim of lack of foundation. The foundational requirements for § 491.074 statements were addressed in State v. Bowman, 741 S.W.2d 10, 13-14 (Mo. banc 1987): The old rule about [the proper foundation to] impeach[] ... one's own witness is inappropriate, in view of the statute. Inconsistent statements are available as substantive evidence, and may be used just as soon as the inconsistency appears from the testimony. The only necessary foundation is the inquiry as to whether the witness made the statement ... and whether the statement is true. Any requirement of additional foundation would dilute the effect of the statute. (footnote omitted). The State presented the court with Demetrius's guilt-phase testimony that he did not hear any talking while he was hiding under the bed. Officer Gregory testified that he had interviewed Demetrius on videotape the day of the murders. He stated that the excerpt the State sought to admit into evidence was a true and accurate copy of Demetrius saying something to the effect of `Where are them kids at.' What the State did not do, though the court offered on the record to bring Demetrius back for the penalty phase, was put Demetrius on the stand to affirm or deny the truth of the statement. Even assuming that the State's foundation was insufficient, such an error does not require reversal unless so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial. State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo. banc 1990). Lyons alleges that if the State had put Demetrius back on the stand during the penalty phase one can only speculate as to what he would have responded. This allegation falls short of demonstrating prejudice. While it is true that one of the foundational requirements of Bowman is an inquiry into the truth of the statement, a § 491.074 statement is admissible regardless of the declarant's answer as to its verity. See Bowman, 741 S.W.2d at 14 (affirming admission of prior inconsistent statement even though at trial declarant said it was a coerced lie); State v. Jennings, 815 S.W.2d 434, 443 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Belk, 759 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Mo.App.1988). The jury makes the ultimate decision as to the credibility of the § 491.074 statement. Bowman, 741 S.W.2d at 14. Therefore, the statement would have been admissible even if the State had recalled Demetrius and he swore under oath that the videotaped statement was a lie. Any technical deficiency in foundation was not prejudicial. On a related issue, Lyons claims that when the State was presenting its foundation for the videotape, Officer Gregory's testimony as to what was on the tape was improper bolstering. Lyons relies on a statement from State v. Seever, 733 S.W.2d 438, 441 (Mo. banc 1987), When a witness testifies from the stand, the use of duplicating and corroborative extrajudicial statements is substantially restricted. His reliance is misplaced. The rule in Seever restricts the use of extrajudicial statements consistent with in-court testimony. It is not a rule about the foundation for prior inconsistent statements.
Lyons also objected on the grounds that Demetrius's young age at the time he talked to the police prevented the tape from being admitted. This Court affirms the admission of the statement. The State introduced the videotaped excerpt under § 491.074, the statute that deals specifically with prior inconsistent statements in a murder trial: Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, a prior inconsistent statement of any witness testifying in the trial of an offense under chapter 565, 566 or 568, RSMo, shall be received as substantive evidence, and the party offering the prior inconsistent statement may argue the truth of such statement. The legislature enacted a special statute to govern the admission of prior inconsistent statements in cases involving the most serious and violent crimes and the severest punishments in our criminal code. [3] The language in the statute is clear. In the trial of a chapter 565 offense, the prior inconsistent statement of  any witness testifying in the trial ... shall be received as substantive evidence [n]otwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary. (emphasis added). Demetrius testified at trial. Therefore, any prior inconsistent statements are admissible solely on this basis. Credibility issuessuch as youthare to be considered by the jury while weighing the out-of-court § 491.074 statement against the in-court testimony of a witness. See Bowman, 741 S.W.2d at 14.