Court Opinion

ID: 9757917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:04:18.453961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:45.428602
License: Public Domain

PATRICIA BRECKENRIDGE, Judge,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the admission of the alleged victim’s out-of-court statements under section 491.075. I do so, however, only because the standard of review requires this result. I write separately because I would find that the statements of the alleged victim were lacking in true spontaneity and were only marginally consistent and, therefore, should be inadmissible under section 491.075.1.
On the issue of spontaneity, the little girl’s statements were made after she had received extensive education about sexual abuse, particularly inappropriate touching, and after she had been questioned repeatedly on the topic. Even the little girl’s first statement incriminating N.K. was made after a discussion of inappropriate touching and multiple questions about what happened the night of the alleged molestation. Indeed, several of the little girl’s statements were immediately preceded by some form of discussion about inappropriate touching, and all of her statements were elicited by questions from the interviewers or her therapist. As for consistency, the little girl’s statements were consistent only in the very general allegation that N.K. had touched her on her breasts and genital area. The little girl was not consistent regarding whether this touching occurred under her clothes or with her clothes off; nor was she consistent in her statements regarding whether any other type of abuse, such as oral-genital contact, occurred. Additionally, the little girl supplied almost no details concerning the event other than the fact that touching occurred.
While I recognize that in cases involving a young victim, such as the little girl, it is common for the victim’s statements “ ‘to contain some variations, contradictions or lapses in memory.’ ” State v. Sprinkle, 122 S.W.3d 652, 663 (Mo.App.2003) (citation omitted), under the totality of the circumstances in this case, I would find that the statements do not have sufficient indicia of reliability to be admissible.
*261Nevertheless, although I believe the evidence supported a different conclusion, I cannot say that the juvenile court’s and my colleagues’ determination that the statements possessed sufficient indicia of reliability was “ ‘clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court’ ” and was “ ‘so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.’ ” State v. Costa, 11 S.W.3d 670, 678-79 (Mo.App. 1999) (citation omitted). In reaching this conclusion, I find it significant that all the persons who elicited the statements from the little girl were experienced and trained interviewers and there was no evidence presented that their interview techniques were improper or coercive. Based upon the record before this court, reasonable minds can differ about the propriety of admitting the statements. Therefore, this court cannot find that the juvenile court abused its discretion. Id. at 679. For this reason, I concur in the result.