Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Howell

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Third Division

February 10, 2015

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,
v.
TIMOTHY HOWELL, Appellant

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. 1222-CR03899-01. Honorable John J. Riley.

Amy E. Lowe, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Chris Koster, Todd T. Smith, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Judge. Kurt S. Odenwald, P. J., concurs. Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., concurs.

OPINION

Page 387

Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Judge

Introduction

Timothy Howell (Defendant) appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for one count of attempted sexual misconduct involving a child by knowingly exposing his genitals to a person he believed to be thirteen years old. Defendant argues the State failed to prove his conduct was knowing as to the age of the person. We affirm.

Background

Defendant's conviction arises from an event occurring in October of 2010. Defendant, who was in St. Louis, communicated via the internet with a Georgia Bureau of Investigation Special Agent (the officer), who was posing as a thirteen-year-old girl with the chat name " mandyloo13." Defendant initiated a chat with the officer, and shortly thereafter Defendant sent mandyloo13 a webcam request. When the officer accepted as mandyloo13, he received

Page 388

live streaming video of Defendant, who was naked and masturbating.

This video lasted approximately twenty-four minutes, and Defendant simultaneously chatted with mandyloo13 while streaming the video. During the course of this chat, the officer made comments indicating that mandyloo13 was a minor, and eventually, the officer explicitly gave an age of thirteen. Defendant continued to masturbate on camera, then he ejaculated and ended both the video and the chat.

The State charged Defendant in Count I with enticement of a child and in Count II with attempted sexual misconduct involving a child by knowingly exposing his genitals to a child for his own sexual gratification. At Defendant's bench trial, Defendant's counsel conceded Defendant's guilt regarding Count II, but contested it regarding Count I. The trial court convicted Defendant of Count II and acquitted him of Count I. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.