"Anus" is defined as "the posterior opening of the alimentary canal." State v. Hahn, 35 S.W.3d 393, 395 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) ( citing State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 883 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998)). "Butt" is defined as "buttocks."
To be logically relevant evidence must tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue. State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 887 (Mo.App. 1998). Legally relevant evidence is evidence whose probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court ruling "clearly offends the logic of the circumstance or appears arbitrary and unreasonable." State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 887 (Mo.App. 1998). "Photographs are relevant if they show the scene of the crime, . . . the nature and extent of the wounds, the cause of death, [and] the condition and location of the body."
Section 566.010.1(3) RSMo (1986). "Anus" is defined as "the posterior opening of the alimentary canal." State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 883 (Mo.App. 1998) "Butt" is defined as "buttocks." Id. A "buttock" is defined as "either of the rounded parts at the back of the hips; either half of the rump.
Harrison argues, and the state concedes, that he should be discharged from his conviction on this count, since "buttocks" does not equal "anus," and the state adduced no testimony that Harrison made her touch his anus. In State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998), addressing a similar contention, the court noted that "anus" is defined as "'the posterior opening of the alimentary canal.'" Id. at 883 (quotingWebster's Third New InternationalDictionary 97 (15th ed. 1996)).
State v. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d 149, 158 (Mo.banc 1998). However, we find this case is controlled by our recent decision in State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. App. 1998). If an instruction following MAI-Cr 3d conflicts with the substantive law, any court should decline to follow MAI-Cr 3d or its Notes on Use. Carson, 941 S.W.2d at 520.
The trial court is vested with broad discretion in the admission of evidence. State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 887 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998). Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not interfere with the trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence.
To admit exhibits and testimony regarding tests performed on those exhibits, the trial court must be satisfied as to the identity of the exhibits and that the exhibits were in the same condition when tested as when the exhibits were originally obtained. State v. Mohan, 971 S.W.2d 307, 317 (Mo. banc 1998); State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 886 (Mo.App. 1998). This may be proven by evidence establishing a chain of custody, but proof of a chain of custody does not require proof of hand-to-hand custody of the evidence nor proof that eliminates all possibility that the evidence has been disturbed.
In order to admit exhibits and testimony regarding tests performed on those exhibits, the trial court must be satisfied as to the identity of the exhibits and that the exhibits were in the same condition when tested as when the exhibits were originally obtained. State v. Mahan, 971 S.W.2d 307, 317 (Mo.banc 1998); State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 886 (Mo.App. 1998). This may be proven by evidence establishing a chain of custody, but proof of a chain of custody does not require proof of hand-to-hand custody of the evidence, nor proof that eliminates all possibility that the evidence has been disturbed.
Id. (citing Lovett v. State, 516 A.2d 455, 467 (Del. 1986)); United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173, 1178 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 106 (1978)). Id. (citing United States v. Hajecate, 683 F.2d 894, 897 (5th Cir. 1982); State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 890 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)). In his appeal, Defendant objects to the Commissioner's determination that Dobson v. State and Luttrell v. State could be distinguished from Defendant's case.