## Facts

- Samuel A. Freeman and the victim were regular patrons at a VFW club in Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
- On the night of the killing, they were at the club for several hours, argued about using a pool table, and Freeman appeared agitated.
- Freeman later sat near the victim and offered to buy her a drink; she rejected him.
- At last call, Freeman left with an empty Galliano liqueur bottle given to him by a waitress as a souvenir.
- About fifteen minutes later, the victim left the club to drive to her nearby apartment.
- An upstairs neighbor heard the victim arrive, saw her struggle with her apartment door, and observed a man approach from behind; the two entered the apartment together. No other cars were seen.
- The next afternoon, the victim’s mother discovered the victim dead in her apartment; the victim had been struck in the head with a smooth object, sexually assaulted with a foreign object, and asphyxiated with her own stocking.
- Investigators found Freeman’s DNA on multiple items at the scene, including on the victim and other items associated with the crime scene.
- At trial, the State introduced Galliano bottles as demonstrative exhibits to show the distinctive shape of the bottle Freeman had taken from the bar.
- Freeman argued his DNA could have been deposited earlier and later transferred, and thus did not prove he was present during the murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, including DNA and circumstantial proof, was sufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Freeman committed first-degree murder.
2. Whether admitting Galliano bottles as demonstrative evidence was erroneous because the exhibits were irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial.
3. Whether excluding a note written by Freeman’s mother was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed Freeman’s first-degree murder conviction.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permitted a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held admission of the Galliano bottles as demonstrative evidence was within the trial court’s discretion and not unfairly prejudicial when weighed against probative value.
- The court held exclusion of the mother’s note was not an abuse of discretion and did not warrant reversal absent a showing of prejudicial effect on substantial rights.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and ask whether a rational fact-finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- DNA evidence, combined with corroborating circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient proof of identity and guilt; the jury may reject speculative alternative explanations such as innocent transfer.
- Demonstrative evidence is admissible when it helps the jury understand testimony or physical facts, is relevant, and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; review is for abuse of discretion.
- Exclusion of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and reversal generally requires a showing of prejudice affecting substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Freeman’s conviction because the jury could reasonably infer guilt from the combination of DNA evidence and surrounding circumstances, and because the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting demonstrative Galliano bottles and excluding a note offered by the defense.


State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. 2008)