## Facts

- George Schaffer was charged with forcible rape.
- The prosecuting witness, an 18-year-old woman with intellectual disabilities, testified she was grabbed from behind, dragged into Schaffer’s quarters, and beaten and choked until she lost consciousness.
- Because of her limitations and unconsciousness, she could not state whether intercourse occurred.
- A medical examination shortly after the incident reported findings supporting a reasonable inference of recent intercourse.
- Schaffer admitted the witness spent the night in his house and that they were nude in bed together for part of the night, but claimed intoxication and lack of memory as to intercourse.
- Schaffer testified the witness came to his home voluntarily and was already injured, with torn clothing.
- During testimony, the witness cried and “sniveled”; defense counsel twice moved for a mistrial, arguing her emotional condition prejudiced the jury.
- The trial judge denied both mistrial motions and made comments in the jury’s presence indicating the witness was not hysterical, was conducting herself properly, and that such emotion is common in rape cases.
- A jury found Schaffer guilty; under Missouri’s Habitual Criminal Act, the judge fixed punishment at 99 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial based on the prosecuting witness’s emotional display while testifying.
2. Whether the trial judge’s remarks about the witness’s demeanor amounted to an improper comment on the evidence that prejudiced the defendant and required reversal.
3. Whether the evidence, including medical findings and Schaffer’s admissions, was sufficient to support the rape conviction and the enhanced sentence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the conviction and 99-year sentence.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial based on the witness’s crying and emotional testimony.
- The court held the judge’s remarks about the witness’s demeanor did not constitute reversible error or deprive Schaffer of a fair trial.
- The court concluded the proof permitted a jury finding of forcible rape, and the enhanced sentence under the Habitual Criminal Act was properly imposed.

## Legal Principles

- A mistrial is an extraordinary remedy; whether to grant it for a witness’s emotional display is committed largely to the trial court’s discretion and requires a showing of substantial prejudice.
- Emotional testimony by a complaining witness in a sexual-assault prosecution, without more, does not mandate a mistrial.
- A trial judge may address courtroom conditions and explain rulings in the jury’s presence; reversible error arises when judicial remarks improperly convey an opinion on the truth of testimony or the credibility of a witness.
- In a rape prosecution, a conviction may rest on the totality of the evidence, including the complainant’s account of force, medical evidence consistent with intercourse, and the defendant’s admissions about relevant circumstances.
- Under Missouri’s Habitual Criminal Act, when the statutory prerequisites are met, the court may fix punishment based on proof of prior felony conviction, and a sentence within the statutory range will be upheld absent legal error.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld Schaffer’s rape conviction and 99-year habitual-offender sentence, ruling that the witness’s emotional testimony and the trial judge’s calming, explanatory remarks did not create substantial prejudice requiring a mistrial, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and sentence.


State v. Schaffer, 354 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. 1962)