LACLEDE COUNTY, Mo. — Other employees who were allegedly molested by Dennis Purdy can testify in the former Dairy Queen owner's upcoming trial, per a judge's ruling.

After lengthy oral and written arguments from both Camden County Prosecuting Attorney (PA) Michael Gilley and Defense Counsel Fawzy Simon, Judge Barnes has ruled the State can introduce evidence in the form of direct testimony from persons previously employed by defendant Dennis Purdy. Their testimony will likely be about alleged acts of a sexual nature substantially similar to the alleged acts for which defendant Purdy has been charged in the case now pending and scheduled for trial in Laclede County.

Counsel for both the state and the defense had agreed to a continuance awaiting a ruling from the Missouri Supreme Court. The decision, issued in January 2016 in Tipler v. Gardner, determined whether testimony and evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, could be introduced to show a defendant had a propensity toward criminal acts of a sexual nature involving a minor child. This ruling clarified language in the Missouri Constitution in Article I, Sec. 18 (c).

The upcoming trial of Dennis Purdy involves multiple counts of felony sexual acts upon a female employee who was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. In a recently filed Second Amended Information, the State of Missouri lists the formal charges against Purdy as Count I, Forcible Sodomy; Count II, Statutory Sodomy in the Second Degree; Count III, Sexual Abuse. The first Count includes a statutory stipulation that an individual convicted and sentenced for this crime must serve eighty-five percent (85%) of the sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

Defense Attorney Simon argued that Judge Hayden, in a previous court appearance by Purdy, ruled he would not allow propensity evidence. Judge Barnes, finding no written record nor recorded motion indicating exactly what evidence the State planned to introduce and no written record regarding the nature and scope of the Hayden statements, ruled that any statements by Judge Hayden would not constitute res judicata (something which has already been adjudicated). Also, Judge Barnes noted in his ruling that any verbal statement made by Hayden prohibiting propensity evidence occurred prior to the Tipler ruling.

The language of Judge Barnes ruling was clear and concise. “There is no substantial substantive State or Federal constitutional rights which overweigh the application of provisions of Article I, Sec. 18(c) which has the purpose of protecting vulnerable juveniles from sexual assault or conduct by adult offenders of the nature of conduct alleged against Defendant.” Therefore, when Purdy stands trial, propensity evidence may be introduced by the State.

0
0
0
0
0

(0 Ratings)