STATE OF MISSOURI v. DANIEL WILLIAM WHITE (2026)

Following a bench trial, Daniel William White (“Defendant”) was convicted of one count of child molestation in the third degree (§ 566.069), a class-C felony.¹ Defendant raises a single point on appeal, contending the State's evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the evidence did not establish that he touched the victim's (“Victim”) breasts for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire. Finding no merit in that claim, we affirm.

Standard of Review

We review for whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to find “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Guthrie, 733 S.W.3d 421, 423 (Mo. banc 2026). We do not reweigh the evidence, as the factfinder may reasonably “believe all, some, or none of the testimony of a witness when considered with the facts, circumstances and other testimony in the case.” State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Mo. banc 2011). This Court “accepts as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignores all contrary evidence[ ] and inferences.” Guthrie, 733 S.W.3d at 423 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Eggleston, 728 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Mo. banc 2026)). “[T]he Court does not act as a ‘super juror’ with veto powers, but gives great deference to the trier of fact.” Eggleston, 728 S.W.3d at 436 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Nonetheless, we will not “supply missing evidence, or give the [s]tate the benefit of unreasonable, speculative or forced inferences.” Guthrie, 733 S.W.3d at 423 (alteration in original) (quoting Eggleston, 728 S.W.3d at 436); see also Nash, 339 S.W.3d at 509. The State may rely upon either “direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime.” State v. Howell, 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004).

Background

Victim is Defendant's biological daughter. Defendant and Victim's mother shared custody of Victim pursuant to a custody arrangement. When Victim stayed with Defendant, she shared a bedroom with her sister. The bedroom did not have a door. Defendant slept in a separate room with his wife, Victim's stepmother.

Victim testified at trial that during her 8th grade year, while Victim stayed with Defendant, Defendant began making comments about the size of Victim's breasts, buttocks, and, generally, how “grown [Victim] was starting to look.” These comments continued for several months. She testified that the comments made her feel uncomfortable and “put a pit in [her] stomach.” Victim testified that Defendant's conduct “escalat[ed]” and that Defendant began touching her sexually. One such instance was when she was alone in her room putting on a bra. Victim testified that Defendant walked into her bedroom with her bra only partially covering her breasts and commented how big her nipples were. Defendant proceeded to squeeze both her breasts with his hands, then left the room. In another instance, Victim testified that Defendant would wrap his arms around her waist and press his lower half against her lower back, and Victim could feel Defendant's erection. Victim also testified to Defendant laying on top of her and pressing his erection against her back. Eventually, Victim disclosed the sexual abuse to her mother and a school counselor.

Victim's sister testified at trial that she saw Defendant grab Victim's breasts, through her clothes, in the living room on a few occasions. Victim's sister also testified Defendant “push[ed]” his “lower half” against her like he did to Victim.

When police interviewed Defendant, he stated he previously helped Victim fasten her bra “on at least one occasion.” Defendant admitted that on other occasions he “accidentally walked in while the girls were changing clothes in the bedroom.” Defendant also admitted making comments about Victim's breasts, but he claimed they were in reference to the fact that her clothes and bras were “too small” because her breasts were “getting bigger.” Defendant denied touching Victim in a sexual manner or making comments in a “sexually charged manner.”

Following Defendant's bench trial on June 11, 2025, the circuit court orally announced it found Defendant guilty of child molestation in the third degree. The circuit court also stated on the record that it found the testimony of Victim and Victim's sister to be credible “beyond a reasonable doubt” and that Defendant had touched Victim to arouse “his sexual desire.” The circuit court entered its written judgment on July 21, 2025, from which Defendant timely appeals.

Discussion

Defendant's sole point contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for child molestation in the third degree because the State failed to prove Defendant touched Victim's breasts for the purpose of arousing his sexual desire. We disagree.

Under § 566.069, a person commits the offense of child molestation in the third degree if he or she “subjects a child who is less than fourteen years of age to sexual contact.” Sexual contact is defined as “any touching of ․ the breast of a female person, or such touching through the clothing ․ for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person[.]” Section 566.010(6) (RSMo Supp. 2017, effective Aug. 28, 2017). We look to “the circumstances of the particular case” to determine whether a defendant had the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person. State v. Willis, 239 S.W.3d 198, 201 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007). Because direct evidence of a defendant's purpose is rarely available, “proof of the actor's mental state will often rest on circumstantial evidence and permissible inferences.” Id. “Touching a woman's breast can be” inherently sexual. State v. Nieto, 689 S.W.3d 239, 246 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024).

Here, Victim testified that Defendant entered her bedroom when she was alone, commented on the size of her nipples, squeezed her breasts with his hands, “dug in a little bit[,]” and then left the room. Victim's testimony describing the circumstances of Defendant touching her breasts was sufficient to support the factfinder's conclusion that Defendant's touching was for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire. See Nieto, 689 S.W.3d at 245-46 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (victim's “testimony alone was sufficient to establish [the defendant]’s perverse motive.”). Not only did Defendant touch Victim's breasts, but he squeezed them with both hands and commented on the size of her nipples. See id. at 246 (noting that touching a woman's breast can be an inherently sexual act). Even if Defendant's inference that he was “merely assisting [Victim] with her bra” was reasonable, our standard of review would require us to reject it. See Guthrie, 733 S.W.3d at 423.

Conclusion

After a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the circuit court's factual findings, we conclude the State satisfied its burden, and the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Defendant committed child molestation in the third degree. Defendant's sole point is denied, and the circuit court's judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo 2016, including, as applicable, statutory changes effective Jan. 1, 2017, and all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2025).

JOSEPH L. HENSLEY, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

BECKY J. WEST, C.J. – CONCURS BRYAN E. NICKELL, J. – CONCURS