## Facts

- Alta Renee Moran is the biological mother of two children, M.R.E. and D.D.D.
- Moran served about three years in prison on a felony conviction, and during her incarceration the children were placed in the custody of Ed and Toni Anderson.
- After Moran’s release, the Andersons sought and obtained ex parte child-protection orders against Moran.
- The orders barred Moran from contacting the children and from conduct such as abusing, threatening to abuse, stalking, molesting, or disturbing the peace of either child; Moran was personally served.
- About a month later, Moran was sitting in a parked car when M.R.E. rode by on his bicycle; Moran yelled, “I’ll get you back!”
- The statement was delivered in a threatening tone, and M.R.E. returned home visibly upset.
- After the incident, the Andersons observed a marked change in M.R.E.’s behavior: he isolated himself, stopped playing outside, refused to eat and lost weight, cried more often, and became aggressive when asked about what was wrong.
- Moran later approached both children again in a menacing manner and repeated that she would “get them back.”
- Moran was arrested and charged with multiple offenses, including counts for violating the child-protection orders, as well as assault and disturbing the peace; one protection-order count alleged that Moran “abused” M.R.E. by the “I’ll get you back!” incident (emotional abuse).
- At trial, both children testified. M.R.E. testified he was upset because he did not want to live with Moran.
- D.D.D. testified that about two weeks before trial Moran threatened to kill her if she kept talking to the prosecutor or testified at trial; this threat was not separately charged, and Moran did not object to the testimony.
- After the evidence, Moran moved for judgment of acquittal on the count based on “abuse” of M.R.E., arguing the evidence did not prove abuse because “emotional abuse” was not defined by Missouri law.
- The trial court denied the motion, and the jury found Moran guilty on all counts.
- On appeal, Moran conceded a valid order existed, she had notice, and she made the “I’ll get you back!” statement, but argued the statement did not amount to “abuse” and that admission of the death-threat testimony warranted relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence that Moran yelled “I’ll get you back!” to M.R.E. in a threatening manner, followed by significant emotional and behavioral changes, was sufficient to prove “abuse” for a conviction for violating a child-protection order.
2. Whether the trial court plainly erred by admitting, without objection, D.D.D.’s testimony that Moran threatened to kill her if she cooperated with the prosecution or testified.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment.
- The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Moran’s threatening statement and its effect on M.R.E. amounted to “abuse” prohibited by the child-protection order.
- The court held that admitting D.D.D.’s unobjected-to testimony about Moran’s threat to kill her was not plain error because it did not create manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice in light of the record.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court considers the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and defers to the jury on credibility and fact-finding.
- When a statute or order uses a term such as “abuse” without a detailed definition, the fact-finder may apply the term’s common meaning in deciding whether the conduct prohibited by the order was proved.
- Threatening or menacing conduct toward a child, combined with proof of resulting fear or emotional harm, can support a finding of “abuse” for violating a child-protection order.
- Claims of evidentiary error not preserved by a timely objection are reviewed only for plain error; relief requires a showing that the error caused manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.
- Testimony about an uncharged threat may be admitted without plain-error relief when it helps explain a witness’s fear or behavior and, given the remaining evidence, is not outcome-determinative.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed Moran’s convictions, ruling that a jury could reasonably find Moran’s threatening “I’ll get you back!” statement—viewed with the child’s ensuing emotional disturbance—constituted “abuse” barred by the child-protection order, and that the admission of unobjected-to testimony about a later death threat did not warrant reversal under plain-error review.


Missouri v. Moran, 297 S.W.3d 100 (2009)