August 24, 2017

A Butler County judge issued an order Wednesday saying the testimony of four former female students of a Naylor science teacher/assistant principal, who they allege touched them inappropriately, will be allowed as evidence in his upcoming trial. Presiding Circuit Judge Michael Pritchett issued his order "sustaining in part (the) state's motion to admit propensity evidence" in the case of John Franklin Mullins...

A Butler County judge issued an order Wednesday saying the testimony of four former female students of a Naylor science teacher/assistant principal, who they allege touched them inappropriately, will be allowed as evidence in his upcoming trial.

Presiding Circuit Judge Michael Pritchett issued his order "sustaining in part (the) state's motion to admit propensity evidence" in the case of John Franklin Mullins.

The state, represented by Ripley County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kacey Proctor, had filed a motion asking for the admission of evidence, which it says would demonstrate the alleged propensity of Mullins to commit sexual-related crimes against children.

The 54-year-old Gatewood, Mo., man is charged with the unclassified felonies of first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy and two Class D felonies of sexual contact with a student.

Mullins is accused of sexually assaulting a then 16-year-old female student on Oct. 23, 2015, in a supply closet at the school.

It was during the investigation into those allegations that authorities learned of a possible second victim -- a then 15-year-old female.

Mullins subsequently was charged with two Class D felonies of sexual contact with a student regarding the teen.

Mullins is to stand trial on both cases May 9 - 11 in Butler County.

"Having fully considered the state's motion to admit propensity evidence, the suggestions in support thereof, the memorandum in opposition filed by defendant, and the testimony of witnesses presented at hearings" on July 18 and Aug. 1, "the court sustains said motion with regard to testimony" of four of the witnesses, Pritchett's order says.

The court, the order further says, finds the "testimony of said witnesses to be legally and factually similar to the case at bar."

Pritchett overruled the state's motion regarding a fifth witness.

Pritchett also reportedly considered State v. Matson before issuing his order.

The Matson case, which was appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, involved a man with two convictions for statutory sodomy and one conviction for statutory rape, and the state's use of propensity evidence at trial. The defense argued the testimony was not relevant as it was too dissimilar and temporarily removed (in time) from the present case.

In an opinion handed down Tuesday, the appellate court ruled the judge in Matson's case did not abuse his/her discretion in admitting logically relevant propensity evidence of prior sexual assaults on children.

Regarding Mullins' case, four of his former students, including his second alleged victim, now 17, testified at the July hearing.

During her emotional testimony, the teen described how Mullins allegedly had touched her, indicating he "touched my butt" under her pants and "my boobs under my shirt" at different times.

"When he touched my butt it was after class," the teen said.

The incident, she said, occurred in a storage closet, and one incident took place when Mullins allegedly had given her a homework assignment, with the answers already on it.

Also testifying were three women, now in the early 20s, who had been students in Mullins' science classes when they were eighth/ninth-grade students.

Two testified Mullins showed them notes, asking them to have sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with him. The notes, the women said, were written on sticky notes.

Mullins, according to one of the women, now 23, would lean over her as she was studying and "brush" his hand "in my breast area" or rub up against her inappropriately.

The alleged incidents, the woman said, happened prior to October 2015.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Pritchett took the case under advisement and Mullins' attorney, Danny Moore, subsequently submitted a memorandum in opposition to propensity evidence with the court on July 24.

In his memorandum, Moore said, the other students had "no sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse nor was there any allegations of touching of genitals of the state's propensity witnesses."

Moore said the state's argument "fails because the alleged crimes are so dissimilar in nature that they offer no evidence of (Mullins') propensity to commit the crime in which he stands charged, and ... they are all from years past thus (have) no proximity" to the case.

Moore further argued the state's evidence was not relevant and would cause unfair and undue prejudice to his client.

It had been Moore's request that the court to deny the state's offer propensity evidence at his client's trial.

Advertisement
Advertisement