## Facts

- L.D. Sibley was prosecuted in Missouri for “defiling, debauching, and carnally knowing” his stepdaughter, Lula Hawkins, a female under eighteen.
- Hawkins lived in Sibley’s household and testified Sibley had nonconsensual intercourse with her repeatedly beginning when she was about twelve or thirteen.
- Hawkins also testified her mother knew of the conduct and did not stop it; Hawkins later left home for St. Louis.
- Over defense objection, the trial court admitted: (1) letters associated with Sibley and Hawkins’s mother, including a letter written solely by the mother; (2) Hawkins’s testimony that she became pregnant by Sibley and that he gave her “medicine” to induce an abortion; (3) prosecution testimony that Sibley’s reputation for “chastity and virtue” was bad; and (4) testimony about Hawkins’s sexual acts with men other than Sibley.
- Sibley was convicted and appealed, challenging the evidentiary rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether letters dictated to Sibley by his wife, and a separate letter written solely by the wife without proof of Sibley’s knowledge or adoption, were admissible against Sibley.
2. Whether testimony that the complainant became pregnant by Sibley and that he gave her medicine to induce an abortion was admissible or constituted inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial collateral matter.
3. Whether the State could introduce evidence of Sibley’s bad reputation for “chastity and virtue” when Sibley had not placed his character in issue.
4. Whether evidence of the complainant’s specific sexual acts with men other than the defendant was admissible to impeach her credibility in a statutory-rape prosecution.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- Letters actually written by Sibley, including those dictated by his wife where Sibley wrote them and knew their contents, could be treated as his statements; a letter written solely by the wife without proof Sibley knew of it was not admissible against him (though that error alone was not deemed prejudicial).
- Admission of the pregnancy/abortion-related testimony was error where it rested on improper hearsay or lacked adequate foundation and carried substantial risk of unfair prejudice on matters collateral to the charged offense.
- Admission of prosecution evidence that Sibley had a bad reputation for “chastity and virtue” was error because the State could not attack his character trait where he had not introduced character evidence.
- Admission of evidence describing the complainant’s specific sexual acts with third parties for impeachment was error.

## Legal Principles

- A writing may be admitted as a party’s statement when the party authored it or otherwise authorized, adopted, or knew of its contents; a writing by a spouse or third party is not attributable to the accused absent such proof.
- Hearsay and inadequately founded testimony offered to prove collateral inflammatory allegations may be excluded when its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its limited probative value for the charged elements.
- The prosecution generally may not introduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character trait unless the defendant first places character in issue; character attacks cannot be used as propensity proof of guilt.
- For impeachment in sex-offense cases, specific acts of the complainant’s sexual conduct with persons other than the accused are inadmissible; impeachment is not permitted through collateral proof of particular sexual episodes (as distinct from any permitted general reputation evidence under then-existing doctrine).

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the prosecution introduced multiple forms of inadmissible and prejudicial evidence, including improper hearsay and collateral allegations, an unauthorized letter attributed to the defendant, impermissible bad-character evidence when character was not in issue, and impeachment through specific-act proof of the complainant’s sexual conduct with third parties.


State v. Sibley, 33 S.W. 167 (Mo. 1895)