STATE v. KLOEPPEL (2026)

Introduction

Lawrence Kloeppel (“Appellant”) appeals the circuit court's judgment after a jury found him guilty of first-degree statutory sodomy and the circuit court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In his sole point on appeal, Appellant argues the circuit court abused its discretion by improperly admitting testimony from Victim's grandmother (“Grandmother”), arguing the evidence was not legally relevant because the speculative and irrelevant nature of the evidence outweighed its probative value and deprived him of a fair trial. This Court holds Grandmother's testimony was admissible to establish Appellant's motivation of sexual desire and Appellant cannot show prejudice from its admission. Point One is denied.

The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural History

Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial established:¹

In 2015, Appellant was in a relationship with Grandmother, and the pair lived in a small trailer less than two miles away from Victim's home. Victim and her siblings stayed at Grandmother's trailer almost every weekend. Due to limited space, the grandchildren slept in the living room, with Victim on a small cot and her sister and brother on the two couches. Appellant's recliner was also in the living room which is where he spent most of the day and night seated, playing video games on his laptop. Victim routinely sat on Appellant's lap, often covered in a blanket. Victim's brother (“Brother”) observed Appellant wake her up in the middle of the night “multiple times,” and carry her from the cot to the recliner to sit on his lap. Brother saw Victim in Appellant's lap when he fell back to sleep.

On June 21, 2020, when Victim was seven years old, she told Mother and Grandmother her “Pawpaw” (referring to Appellant) had been putting his hands down her pants and touching her private part. Mother reported Victim's disclosure to the Children's Advocacy Center (“CAC”), and gave a written statement to the police. Victim told a CAC investigator Appellant had touched her private area. Victim told the CAC forensic interviewer Appellant was not her “Pawpaw” anymore, and he touched her “crouch” with his hand. Victim stated Appellant would cover their legs with a blanket and say “I love you” while he put his fingers inside her private area. When the CAC interviewer asked Victim to circle the “crouch” on a diagram of a female body, Victim circled the pubic area, showing where Appellant had touched her.

Appellant was charged with two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy against a victim under 12 years of age for penetrating Victim's genitals with his finger for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire.² Before trial, Appellant deposed Grandmother, who described a specific incident in which he awoke her during the early morning hours. Appellant was standing next to their bed, his penis was already erect, and they had sex. Grandmother recalled this specific incident because she maintained a rule against having sex when the grandchildren were staying at the trailer, and the grandchildren were present when this occurred.

Appellant filed a motion in limine to exclude Grandmother's testimony as irrelevant because the probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice. The circuit court judge ruled Grandmother could testify to the facts of the incident but could not offer any speculative inference regarding what Appellant had been doing beforehand to cause his arousal.

At trial, Victim, Mother, Brother, Grandmother, and the CAC interviewer testified. Appellant also testified in his own defense. He acknowledged Victim would often sit on his lap in the recliner covered in a blanket. Appellant denied touching Victim's private area, waking her during the night, and taking her to the recliner. Appellant also disputed Grandmother's testimony he awoke her in the early morning hours already aroused and denied her assertion they had a rule against having sex when the grandchildren were present. Appellant testified he and Grandmother had an active sex life and it was typical for them to have sex at night, even when the grandchildren were present.

The State offered a stipulated propensity statement regarding Appellant's two previous sexual offenses, which was read into the record. In 1989, Appellant was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse when he subjected a victim who was less than 14 years old to sexual contact. In 2017, Appellant was convicted of second-degree sexual misconduct when he asked the victim to engage in sexual contact when he knew his request was likely to cause affront or alarm.

After 25 minutes of deliberation, the jury found Appellant guilty of the charged offense. The circuit court sentenced him to life imprisonment.

This appeal follows.

Preservation and Standard of Review

“The general rule for the preservation of error is an objection stating specific grounds must be made at trial, the same grounds must be set out in the motion for new trial, and these grounds must be renewed in the appellate brief.” State v. Young, 603 S.W.3d 305, 313 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). Here, Appellant filed a motion in limine to exclude Grandmother's testimony based on legal relevance, renewed this objection during trial, included the objection as a specific ground for new trial, and raised the issue in his appellate brief. Thus, Appellant's legal relevance claim is properly preserved for appellate review.

“Circuit courts retain wide discretion over issues of relevancy and admissibility of evidence.” State v. Prince, 534 S.W.3d 816, 818 (Mo banc 2017). “A trial court's decision regarding the admissibility of evidence for relevance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Taylor, 466 S.W.3d 521, 528 (Mo. banc 2015). “A circuit court abuses its discretion if its decision is ‘clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so unreasonable and arbitrary that it shocks the sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful, deliberate consideration.’ ” State v. Jackson-Bey, 690 S.W.3d 181, 184 (Mo. banc 2024) (quoting State v. Carpenter, 605 S.W.3d 355, 359 (Mo. banc 2020)). A circuit court's decision will not be disturbed for mere error, but will be reversed “only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” Prince, 534 S.W.3d at 818.

Discussion

Point One: Admissibility of Testimony

Party Positions

In his sole point on appeal, Appellant contends the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting Grandmother's testimony about his state of sexual arousal because it was not legally relevant and improperly influenced the jury to consider whether he was “the type of person” who would commit the offense. The State contends Grandmother's testimony was admissible because it was legally relevant to establish Appellant touched Victim's genitals for the purpose of arousing his sexual desire. The State also asserts Appellant was not prejudiced by admission of the testimony.

Analysis

“To be admissible, evidence must be both logically and legally relevant.” Taylor, 466 S.W.3d at 528. “Evidence is logically relevant if it tends to make the existence of a material fact more or less probable.” Id. To the extent Appellant challenges the logical relevance of Grandmother's testimony arguing (1) it was speculative because the quantity of alleged touchings were disproportionate to the isolated incident Grandmother described, and (2) his conduct was inherently improbable to occur when he could have been caught, these arguments were not preserved. While Appellant's argument lacks clarity, he did not raise logical relevance in his point relied on, so this Court will not consider it because it is not preserved. Hollis by and Through Hollis v. Poplar Bluff Reg'l Med. Ctr., LLC, 674 S.W.3d 76, 92 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (quoting Hale v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 638 S.W.3d 49, 61 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021) (“Claims of error raised in the argument portion of a brief that are not raised in a point relied on are not preserved for our review.”)); Hale, 638 S.W.3d at 61 (quoting Rule 84.04(e)) (“The argument shall be limited to those errors included in the ‘Points Relied On.’ ”).

Appellant's legal relevance challenge is properly before this Court. “Evidence is legally relevant when the probative value of the evidence outweighs ‘unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or cumulativeness.’ ” Taylor, 466 S.W.3d at 528 (quoting Johnson v. State, 406 S.W.3d 892, 902 (Mo. banc 2013)). If the prejudice of the admitted evidence outweighs its probative value, it should be excluded. State v. Dodd, 712 S.W.3d 454, 460 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (citing Prince, 534 S.W.3d at 817).

Under Section 566.062.1, RSMo 2016, “[a] person commits the offense of statutory sodomy in the first degree if he or she has deviate sexual intercourse with another person who is less than fourteen years of age.” Deviate sexual intercourse is “any sexual act involving the penetration, however slight, of the ․ female genitalia ․ by a finger ․ done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person.” Section 566.010(3), RSMo Supp. 2017. “In assessing whether a touching is for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire rather than being an innocent touching, a fact-finder looks at the circumstances of the particular case.” State v. Jensen, 184 S.W.3d 586, 589 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (quoting State v. Love, 134 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Mo App. S.D. 2004)). Because direct evidence of a defendant's intent is rarely available, intent is most often proved through circumstantial evidence and permissible inferences. Jensen, 184 S.W.3d at 589. “The state may establish a particular mental state by evidence of [d]efendant's conduct before or after the act itself.” Id.

Appellant's argument that Grandmother's testimony was unrelated to the charged offense because it concerned an independent, adult relationship is not persuasive because the testimony supports the reasonable inference his conduct was for the purpose of arousing his sexual desire. Grandmother testified to one incident when Appellant awoke her in the early morning hours and was standing in their bedroom already erect, after which they had sex. Grandmother noted the grandchildren were staying at the trailer that night and identified the incident as unusual because it violated her rule against having sex when the grandchildren were present. Evidence that Appellant entered their bedroom already erect allowed the reasonable inference he was sexually aroused. Considered alongside Victim's testimony, a reasonable juror could infer his arousal was because of Victim's presence at the trailer. Jensen, 184 S.W.3d at 590 (determining evidence of defendant's erect penis allowed for the reasonable inference he was aroused and the offensive conduct was done for the purpose of sexual arousal); State v. Phelps, 718 S.W.3d 484, 491 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (determining admission of testimony defendant was not attracted to his spouse anymore but had stated victim was “beautiful” and “sexy” supported the reasonable inference he pursued relations with victim for the purpose of sexual desire).

The State correctly asserted the evidence was admissible to corroborate Victim's and Brother's testimony regarding the charged offense. Victim testified she would sit on Appellant's lap while he used his laptop, often covering their legs with a blanket, and he would place his fingers underneath her clothing and inside her private area until he needed to get up. Brother testified he saw Appellant wake Victim up during the night and place her in his lap seated in the recliner—visible from where Brother slept on the couch. Considered together, Victim's and Brother's testimony supports the reasonable inference Appellant's otherwise unexplained arousal immediately preceding the incident Grandmother described, resulted from sexual contact with Victim in the middle of the night after he awoke her. Grandmother's testimony served as circumstantial evidence of Appellant's mental state and as corroboration of Victim's and Brother's accounts, thus showing the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect resulting from its admission.

Even if the circuit court was wrong to admit Grandmother's testimony, Appellant cannot show prejudice because he has not shown but for Grandmother's testimony, there was a reasonable probability he would have been acquitted. “In a criminal case involving improperly admitted evidence, the test for prejudice is whether the error was outcome-determinative.” State v. Thomas, 628 S.W.3d 686, 691 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (quoting State v. Yung, 246 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008)). Prejudice is outcome-determinative if “there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted but for the erroneously admitted evidence.” Id. at 694.

Here, Appellant overlooks the substantial evidence the State presented to support his conviction. Victim testified Appellant said “I love you” while he touched her private area with his hand. Mother and Grandmother testified about Victim's disclosure and the pattern of Victim sitting on Appellant's lap under a blanket. Brother testified Appellant awoke Victim at night and placed her on his lap. The jury also heard Victim's CAC interview and a propensity statement establishing Appellant's two prior convictions for sexual offenses, one of which included a younger child.

Also, the challenged evidence was not central to the State's case. Rather, it was one piece of evidence offered to make an element of the charged offense more likely. Grandmother's testimony was limited to the facts of the incident, and the State referenced the testimony briefly during closing arguments. See Phelps, 718 S.W.3d at 493 (finding no prejudice where the disputed evidence was merely one component of the State's case and comprised only 28 lines of testimony out of 900 pages of trial transcript). Even if this testimony was improperly admitted, given the overwhelming evidence presented there is not a reasonable probability Appellant would have been acquitted had Grandmother's testimony been excluded.

The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Grandmother's testimony. Point One is denied.

Conclusion

The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   State v. Stewart, 560 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Mo. banc 2018).

2.   Count Two was dismissed before trial.

Philip M. Hess, Judge

Michael S. Wright, Presiding Judge and Virginia W. Lay, Judge concur.