M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Date: 04-20-2017

Case Style:

STATE OF MISSOURI vs. CARY L. BANEY

Case Number: ED104363

Judge: James M. Dowd

Court: MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS EASTERN DISTRICT

Plaintiff's Attorney: n

Daniel N. McPherson

Defendant's Attorney:




Matthew Alan Radefeld




Michael Bernard Murphy


Description: Cary L. Baney, a chiropractor, was found guilty by a jury in the circuit court of Montgomery County of one count of deviate sexual assault arising out of the unwelcome touching by Baney of a female patient’s genitals with his hand during an office visit in August 2013. Baney was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Baney appeals, asserting three points of error: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his amended motion for a new trial based on the post-trial discovery that C.P. (“Victim”) was seeking a monetary settlement from Baney’s insurance company because the new evidence would likely result in Baney’s acquittal; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because a comment made by prospective juror number thirty-eight (“Prospective Juror 38”) during voir dire tainted the panel and the State used the prejudicial comment in closing argument to improperly prejudice the jury against Baney; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to adduce sufficient, credible evidence to make a submissible case.

Outcome:

As to point I, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baney’s claim because the lack of prior knowledge about Victim’s motive was due in large part to Baney’s failure to ask Victim about her motive. As to point II, Baney failed to preserve this argument by failing to object to the State’s closing argument at trial and we decline plain error review. Last, point III is denied because the State adduced sufficient evidence at trial to support Baney’s conviction. Victim’s testimony alone was sufficient evidence to support Baney’s conviction. The judgment is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2018 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.