The case against a former Camdenton Dairy Queen owner charged with sexually abusing an employee may have been strengthened by a Missouri Supreme Court decision.
On January 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued its ruling in Tipler v. Gardner. That unanimous ruling could impact the case against Dennis Purdy, which is scheduled for trial before Senior Judge Donald Barnes in Camden County on April 25, 2017.
In short, the Supreme Court ruling could allow evidence of prior criminal actions to be admitted as evidence in the current case against Purdy.
Allegations against Purdy stem from an incident in 2013 when he was accused of Forcible Sodomy, Statutory Sodomy 2nd Degree, and Sexual Abuse of an underage employee. At the time, Purdy owned the Dairy Queen on Business 5 in north Camdenton. Purdy entered an Alford Plea in the matter just as jury selection was scheduled to begin in May 2016. (An Alford Plea is similar to a guilty plea, except the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges the state likely has enough evidence to obtain a guilty conviction.) Because of inconsistencies in Purdy’s statements in the Sentencing Assessment Report, Judge Hayden declared a mistrial in July and allowed Purdy to withdraw his pleas in the case.
Purdy’s current trial for the same charges was postponed pending the anticipated ruling from the Supreme Court in the Tipler case. At issue is the amendment to the Missouri Constitution passed in 2014, which allows some relevant evidence from prior criminal acts into a trial for sexual crimes with a minor. The text of the amendment reads:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 and 18(a) of … article [1. Bill of Rights. Sec 18c] to the contrary, in prosecutions for crimes of a sexual nature involving a victim under eighteen years of age, relevant evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, is admissible for the purpose of corroborating the victim’s testimony or demonstrating the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime with which he or she is presently charged. The court may exclude relevant evidence of prior criminal acts if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
In Tipler v. Gardner, the State planned to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior criminal history. Tipler’s defense countered that prosecutors could not use such evidence if it predated the amendment. The Court clarified that such evidence from a date prior to the amendment can be introduced at trial.
The central issue in this argument relates to the concept of ex post facto laws which are unconstitutional. An ex post facto law retroactively attaches a criminal penalty to an act that was not a crime when committed. However, this unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court determined that the state can amend the constitution or write new statutes altering the rules of evidence used in a criminal prosecution and the new rules would apply to prosecution of crimes occurring before the effective date of the changes.
Counsel for the state and the defense both agreed upon a request for continuance in the Purdy case while awaiting the ruling from the Supreme Court in Tipler, as the ruling would be considered determinative of a principal issue in the Purdy matter before the court.
