STATE v. GUERIN (2026)

Marvin Eugene Guerin (“Defendant”) appeals his convictions for first-degree rape following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Christian County, Missouri. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant alleges the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Victim's prior suicide attempt. Because Defendant failed to preserve this evidentiary challenge and does not facially establish substantial grounds to support plain error review, we affirm.

Procedural History

As Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, we present only a summarized account of the facts relevant to this appeal in the light most favorable to the verdicts. See State v. Estes, 716 S.W.3d 333, 337–38 (Mo. App. S.D. 2025).

Following his actions on September 2, 2022, and September 13, 2022, Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree rape and one count of resisting arrest.¹ Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine seeking the preliminary exclusion of, inter alia, inquiry into “the mental health of [Victim] and whether she [had] attempted suicide in the past.” Defendant affirmatively indicated there was “no objection” to the State's motion.

At trial, the State adduced testimonial and photographic evidence of various physical injuries Victim sustained as a result of the rapes – including scratches, abrasions, and bruising to Victim's neck, chest, arms and legs – without objection by Defendant. Victim also testified Defendant had, inter alia, choked her during the rape. During Victim's cross-examination, defense counsel asked if Victim had broken up with her boyfriend two weeks prior to the underlying incident. When Victim responded in the affirmative, defense counsel asked if she had attempted to hang herself at the time. The State objected and requested a sidebar. The following exchange then occurred:

[Prosecutor:] This is irrelevant. This violates the motion in limine. This specific paragraph regarding her attempt to commit suicide as asked in the deposition was a part of the motion in limine that [Defendant's counsel] agreed to. The State does not believe this is relevant at all, other than to prejudice [Victim] and harass her.

[Trial Court:] What's the relevance of this?

[Defendant's Counsel:] This is about [Victim's] state of mind at the time.

[Trial Court:] That's not at the time of this incident. That's two weeks before. Or I don't know how many weeks before at this point, but are you saying that it happened on –

[Defendant's Counsel:] The other (inaudible) – ․. The mark on the neck, the mark on the neck.

[Trial Court:] Do we have doctors’ testimony about stages of bruising? Will we have any expert come in and talk about this?

[Defendant's Counsel:] No.

[Trial Court:] So I'm going to disallow it. I will sustain the objection.

(The proceedings returned to open court.)

[Trial Court:] Objection is sustained.

[Defendant's Counsel:] You and your boyfriend broke up that night; correct?

[Victim:] Yes.

[Defendant's Counsel:] Okay. No further questions.

Defendant was ultimately found guilty on both counts of first-degree rape and sentenced. This appeal follows.

Analysis

Preservation

“Appellate courts are merely courts of review for trial errors, and there can be no review of a matter which has not been presented to or expressly decided by the trial court.” State v. Vitale, 688 S.W.3d 740, 746 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (internal quotations omitted). Defendant asserts on appeal that the trial court violated his constitutional rights to due process, to a fair trial, and to present a defense and erroneously excluded evidence relevant to his defense. However, Defendant fails to demonstrate that he properly preserved any of these issues for review.

Regarding Defendant's allegations of constitutional violations, the record recited above shows that Defendant failed to present any constitutional grounds for admitting the disputed testimony to the trial court. As this Court noted in State v. Cooper:

In order to preserve a constitutional issue for appellate review, a party must (1) raise the issue at the first available opportunity, (2) state the constitutional provision claimed to be violated by specifically referencing the article and section of the constitution or by quoting the constitutional provision itself, (3) state the facts that comprise the constitutional violation, and (4) preserve the constitutional issue throughout the criminal proceeding.

728 S.W.3d 841, 848 (Mo. App. S.D. 2025) (quoting State v. Newlon, 216 S.W.3d 180, 184 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007)). Defendant did not fulfill any of these requirements to preserve his claim on constitutional grounds. We “will not convict a trial court of an error not put before it to decide.” Id. at 849 (quoting State v. Tilley, 104 S.W.3d 814, 820 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003)). Thus, Defendant's constitutional claim has not been preserved, and our review, if any, would be for plain error.

Similarly, Defendant failed to preserve any evidentiary challenge to the trial court's exclusion of Victim's prospective testimony regarding her purported suicide attempt. “When a trial court sustains an objection to proffered evidence, the party offering the evidence must demonstrate its relevancy and materiality by way of an offer of proof to preserve the matter for appellate review.” State v. Hodges, 529 S.W.3d 28, 30 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017) (quoting State v. Pittman, 167 S.W.3d 232, 239 (Mo. App. 2005)). “Failure to make an offer of proof preserves nothing for appellate review.” Id. at 31.

Defendant concedes he made no contemporaneous offer of proof regarding Victim's purported hanging attempt at trial but suggests such an offer was unnecessary because the substance of Victim's prospective testimony is sufficiently clear from the record. We disagree. “[E]ven upon cross-examination, where it appears defense counsel has knowledge of an anticipated answer, error in refusing evidence is not preserved for review unless an offer of proof is made.” Hodges, 529 S.W.3d at 30–31 (quoting State v. Randleman, 705 S.W.2d 98, 101 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986)); see also State v. Woods, 357 S.W.3d 249, 253-54 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (defendant merely implying that proposed questioning would produce impeaching testimony was not sufficient to preserve an evidentiary exclusion for appeal). The offer of proof exception referenced by Defendant is a “narrow” one and only applies where “there is a complete understanding from the record what the excluded testimony would have been, the objection relates to a category of evidence rather than specific testimony, and the record shows the evidence would have helped its proponent.” State v. Rieser, 569 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018).

Here, the record shows neither a complete understanding of what Victim's testimony would have been, nor that said testimony would have helped Defendant. While the State's motion in limine and sidebar remarks at trial suggest Victim may have given deposition testimony on “whether she [had] attempted suicide in the past,” Defendant fails to direct us to any testimony (or other evidence) in the record indicating Victim in fact attempted suicide or that any alleged attempt was via hanging. Defense counsel's mere question asking Victim if she had previously attempted to hang herself, though implying an affirmative response, is not sufficient to show what Victim's answer would have been. See Hodges, 529 S.W.3d at 30 (“a question posed by counsel, standing alone, is not evidence”). Further, without an offer of proof, the full extent of defense counsel's intended line of questioning and Victim's corresponding responses is unclear. Accordingly, Defendant's evidentiary challenge is unpreserved and may only be reviewed for plain error.

Plain Error

Defendant requests we review any unpreserved claims for plain error. Such review is “discretionary” and available “only when the appellant's request for plain error review establishes facially substantial grounds for believing that the trial court's error was evident, obvious, and clear and that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.” State v. Jones, 725 S.W.3d 577, 583-84 (Mo. banc 2025).

Here, Defendant fails to facially establish any such grounds. Defendant's brief presents cursory recitations of the plain error standard and other general statements of law but wholly fails to provide any substantive analysis connecting these principles of law to the specific facts of this case. Additionally, we note that Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions on appeal, further undermining any notion that he suffered a manifest injustice from the trial court excluding evidence of Victim's alleged suicide attempt. See State v. Jones, 530 S.W.3d 525, 534 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (“Appellate courts rarely find plain error in criminal cases if there is overwhelming evidence of guilt or the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction.”) (quoting State v. Kunonga, 490 S.W.3d 746, 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016)).

The Supreme Court of Missouri has consistently cautioned that plain error review “is to be used sparingly and may not be used to justify a review of every point that has not been otherwise preserved for appellate review.” See Jones, 725 S.W.3d at 585 (quoting State v. Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Mo. banc 2020)). In light of the foregoing, we decline to review Defendant's point for plain error.

Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Prior to trial, Defendant pled guilty to the resisting arrest charge and that conviction is not at issue on appeal.

MATTHEW P. HAMNER, J.

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, J., concurs BRYAN E. NICKELL, J., concurs