Court Opinion

ID: 9784513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:46:54.571533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:55.423176
License: Public Domain

KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
I concur in affirming the convictions, but because of the actions of the prosecutor I would remand for sentencing.
The argument and comments of the prosecutor are egregious and beyond the pale of fair argument, and if countenanced by State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. banc 2008), should not be.
This case involves the conviction of defendant for acts against his step-children. In the penalty phase of the trial the prosecutor said the following:
Good morning. This has been a hard case for everyone. And it’s very hard for a reason that you all don’t know how truly hard this has been.
Back in '04, '05, the defendant pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree. He had originally been charged with statutory sodomy in the first degree. There was a plea bargain, which allowed him to plead guilty to a non-sex offense, by another prosecutor. The victim in that case was his natural daughter, Ashley. And she was under fifteen. The family knew years ago what the defendant was capable of doing. But they pretty much threw Ashley to the curb.
I am going to be having — well Sean is not going to be here today. It was hard enough for him before. Stephanie is going to come in and tell you how this affected her life. Because it has. It’s taken away some choices in her life, about how she views sexual conduct.
Michelle will come in and tell you about how this has affected her. Because it has. Because in her mind, she failed to protect her children. And maybe some of that it true.
But most importantly, Ashley is going to come in here today, and this is for Ashley. And she will tell you what happened. I am not asking you right now for punishment. And I expect you not *729to consider a punishment at this time. Hear the evidence. Keep an open mind. And then make a decision. Thank you.
Tran. P. 557-558.
Of course this case is not “for Ashley ...” This case is about the appropriate punishment for the crimes for which the defendant has been found guilty. “Ashley” was defendant’s natural daughter and defendant’s actions with Ashley resulted in a plea of endangering the welfare of a child. That should be the end of that. But it was not.
The prosecutor called Ashley to the stand, and over the objection of counsel that the vivid — indeed lurid — facts from the previous case were irrelevant and not probative for the jury’s consideration but were plainly prejudicial, Ashley testified. I find this an abuse of discretion and outside the bounds of appropriate evidence in the penalty phase.
To my mind this error is only compounded by the argument made in closing by the prosecutor:
Several years ago justice wasn’t done at all. It wasn’t. Ashley got kicked to the curb. And this family knew that David is capable of this conduct. And as I stand in front of you, I don’t know what to ask for. I am a prosecutor, I do this all of the time. It’s very, very easy for me to say life. But I don’t want that to sound like it’s an easy thing for me to say. Because it really isn’t. But this man has taken away the security of at least three children. He is taken away the innocence of three children. And he has taken away the choice of three children.
Stephanie came in here and told you how hard it is for her to be close to anyone. And how she views sex. You would like your children to have a safe and secure life, and to learn the things in their time and in their own way. And the defendant took that from her. Just took it from her, without a though other than — actually the only thought he had when he took it was his own sexual gratification. That’s all this is about.
Tran. p. 580.
This same theme of personalization and revenge for Ashley continues in the final argument of the prosecutor:
And I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I was affronted by that plea deal when I saw it. He has had his second chance. He doesn’t deserve another one. The consequences for Stephanie are lifelong. For Sean. And for Ashley. And quite frankly for Tyler. Because Tyler now knows his dad sexually abused three of his siblings.
Tran. p. 590.
Simply, for me, this is too much. I find it unfair, and would not be countenanced in a trial where guilt and punishment are done simultaneously. I do not believe the “bifurcated penalty phase” was intended to allow the testimony and argument as occurred in this case.
I would reverse for re-sentencing.