# State v. Collins

> Missouri Court of Appeals · May 31, 2005 · 163 S.W.3d 614

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9669001

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Sammy COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 31, 2005
- **Citations:** 163 S.W.3d 614; 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 830; 2005 WL 1274094
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parrish
- **Judges:** Kenneth W. Shrum
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9669001

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding interviewer’s testimony, that the victim’s penchant for correcting the interviewer’s misstatements was a “hallmark of credibility,” admissible because the comment was not directed to victim’s trial testimony nor to her overall credibility as a witness, but was merely a…
- finding expert’s testimony that the victim’s penchant for correction during her interview was “one of the hallmarks of credibility for kids” was not directed to the victim’s overall 8 credibility as a witness but, instead, was merely a comment on the expert’s ability to assess…
- holding testimony about victim exhibiting behavior consistent with CSAAS and victim's behavior being "extremely typical" among sexual abuse victims did not directly or implicitly vouch for victim's credibility
- noting that victim's statements were corroborated by physical evidence she had been abused, by testimony of other witnesses, and in part by defendant's confession
- holding vouching harmless error where the victim’s allegation was corroborated with other evidence

## Opinion text

JOHN E. PARRISH, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached. I respectfully suggest that since the issues discussed in the principal opinion were not preserved' for appellate review and are presented to this court as allegations of *624 plain error, they do not warrant discussion other than that a review of the record with respect to the complaints appellant now makes discloses no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. State v. Nunley, 992 S.W.2d 892, 894-95 (Mo.App.1999). The evidence at trial strongly supports the guilty verdict rendered in the case. I concur in the decision to affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9669001. Public record. Not legal advice.