Criminal Law: Child Molestation/Child Pornography-Prosecutorial Vindictiveness

Defendant appealed his conviction for child molestation, statutory sodomy, sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the case for prosecutorial vindictiveness and overruling his objections to the admission of a photograph from the victim’s interview and certain expert witness testimony.

Where a subsequent search warrant following remand uncovered additional evidence of crimes, the charging of additional counts did not reflect prosecutorial vindictiveness, and there was no error in admitting the expert’s testimony regarding the age ranges of the child depicted in the materials given the witness’s experience and training in digital forensics and child sexual abuse cases.

Judgment is affirmed.

State v. McWilliams (MLW No. 81842/Case Nos. WD86349 & WD86350 – 17 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Sutton, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Boone County, Harris, J. (Ellen Flottman, Columbia, for appellant) (Nathan Aquino, Jefferson City, for respondent)