Criminal Law-Sodomy-Sufficiency of Evidence

Staff Report//February 25, 2026//

Listen to this article

Defendant appealed his conviction for sodomy, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the victim was unable to consent and that defendant was aware of the victim’s inability to consent. Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the perpetrator. Finally, defendant argued that the trial court erred in omitting the definition of consent from the jury instructions.

Where the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the victim was incapable of consent due to her youth, the significant age gap with defendant, and defendant’s explicit romantic and sexual advances, and that defendant knew that the victim was incapable of consent by instructing her to keep their relationship secret, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction.

Judgment is affirmed.

State v. Waller (MLW No. 84399/Case No. SD38562 – 14 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, West, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Wayne County, Seay, J. (Joel J. Schwartz, St. Louis and Nathan Theodore Swanson, St. Louis for appellant) (Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City for respondent)