State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Shawn Ray Hollingshead, Appellant.

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED112762 ) Respondent, ) ) Cause No. 17AB-CR01834 vs. ) ) SHAWN RAY HOLLINGSHEAD ) ) Appellant. ) FILED: December 16, 2025

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY The Honorable Craig E. Hellmann Opinion Shawn R. Hollingshead (Hollingshead) appeals from the trial court's judgment following jury convictions on two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree and four counts of child molestation in the first degree. Hollingshead's sole point on appeal alleges the trial court abused its discretion in permitting Hollingshead's sister, Bettyjeane Hansmann (Hansmann), to testify as an undisclosed rebuttal witness to alleged alibi testimony offered by his wife, Julie Hollingshead (Mrs. Hollingshead). Because Hollingshead failed to provide proper notice of his intent to rely on the defense of alibi, the State had no duty to disclose its rebuttal witness. Furthermore, because Mrs.

2

Hollingshead's testimony did not account for Hollingshead's whereabouts for the entirety of the charging period, her testimony did not constitute a true alibi and disclosure of Hansmann as a rebuttal witness was not required. For those reasons, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting Hansmann's testimony. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Background Hollingshead does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, we limit the following facts from trial to those necessary to resolve this appeal. 1 In June 2016, when A.B. was approximately 25 years old, an individual made a disclosure to her that motivated A.B. to speak to law enforcement about childhood sexual abuse she endured at the hands of her father, Hollingshead. A.B. spoke with Detective Theresa Lustwerk (Detective Lustwerk) and gave a statement regarding the abuse. Detective Lustwerk investigated the allegations which eventually resulted in multiple sex crime charges issued against Hollingshead for abusing A.B. and her younger sister V.H. 2 Among the counts pertaining to A.B. were one count of first-degree statutory sodomy and one count of first-degree child molestation for incidents that occurred on or between February 7, 1996 and December 31, 1997 in Franklin County, Missouri. In preparation for trial the

1 State v. Lavender, 680 S.W.3d 119, 122 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023) (internal citation omitted). 2 Hollingshead was also found guilty of sexual offenses perpetrated against V.H., but those offenses are not discussed here as they are not pertinent to this appeal.

3

parties conducted discovery. In response to the State's Request for Disclosure, 3

Hollingshead made the following disclosure:

3 Neither party included the State's Request for Disclosure in the record on appeal. Rule 84.04(e) requires that all factual assertions contained in the argument of an appellant's brief "have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits." Rule 84.04(e), Mo. Civ. P. (2018). Furthermore, "[s]pecific relevant cites to the record are mandatory and essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts because courts cannot spend time searching the record to determine if factual assertions in the brief are supported by the record." Carmen v. Olsen, 611 S.W.3d 368, 372 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (internal citation omitted). Notably, Hollingshead supplemented the appellate record twice and submitted (1) his Answers to State's Request for Disclosure, (2) his Request for Discovery to the State, and (3) the State's List of Witnesses. Despite supplementing the record twice, Hollingshead failed to supply this Court with the State's Request for Disclosure which gave rise to the alibi/witness information he provided in his Answers. The State also could have provided this Court with its Request for Disclosure, but failed to do so. Rule 81.12(c) does not relieve Hollingshead of the duty to compile the record, however, it allows a respondent who is dissatisfied with the record on appeal to add to that record. Rule 81.12(e), Mo. Civ. P. (2024); Buford v. Mello, 40 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). In its brief, the State says, Although [Hollingshead] has failed to include the State's Request for Disclosure or the question to which he allegedly responded with information loosely construed to be an "alibi," the record below shows that the State requested in item 5 of its Request for Disclosure that [Hollingshead] disclose '[a]ny intent of the Defendant to rely on the defense of alibi, and specific information as to the place at which the accused claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense, together with the names and addresses of the witnesses by whom he proposes to establish such alibi.' See, States Motion for Disclosure in cause number 17AB-CR01834, State v. Shawn R. Hollingshead on Case.net (emphasis added). This Court cannot rely on the State's assertion of Request for Disclosure number 5. See Ellis v. Farmers Ins. Group, 659 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983) (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted) ("Appellants [and Respondents] quote portions from the argument in their brief, but such recitals are insufficient to supply essential matters for review."). Nor can this Court review the underlying cause as it is not part of the record on appeal. See Tarlton v. Dir. of Revenue, State, 201 S.W.3d 564, 567 n.4 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (stating documents not contained in the legal file are not part of the record on appeal, and therefore, the documents cannot be relied on by the parties, and appellate courts cannot consider the documents in their appellate review). Despite the parties' failure to properly supplement the record, in reviewing Hollingshead's Answers to State's

4

Defendant objects to the State's request regarding Alibi as it does not comply with rule 25.05 because the State has only provided a range of dates, not an actual date of the alleged offense. Without waiving said objection, Defendant states he was in Wisconsin for a period of time, was in the hospital after a car accident in 1999, was incarcerated in Perry County periodically, served a 120 day sentence in the Missouri Department of Corrections in 2002, was incarcerated in Washington County in 2001, and was incarcerated in the Franklin County Jail periodically from 2001 - 2010. Defendant was also an over-the-road truck driver for most of the times alleged and was out of town on a regular basis. ... Julie Hollingshead, and Shawn Hollingshead, Jr. have information regarding the dates Defendant was out of town or incarcerated. In the State's case in chief, A.B., V.H., and Detective Lustwerk all testified. In the Defense's case in chief, Hollingshead and Mrs. Hollingshead testified. Finally, over Hollingshead's objection, Hansmann testified as an undisclosed rebuttal witness for the State. At trial, A.B., who was then 33 years old, testified the first time Hollingshead abused her was in her great-grandmother's yellow house in Sullivan, Missouri 4 when A.B. was in kindergarten. A.B. said that around 1996 or 1997, she recalled staying in the yellow house, but she was not living there, as the family moved around during this period. On redirect examination, the State asked A.B., "You are not confused today on which house that first incident of sexual abuse took place. Correct?" A.B. affirmatively stated, "correct ... the yellow house on Jones Street in Sullivan that was my grandmother's."

Request for Disclosure, it is clear the State requested disclosure of specific information pertaining to an alibi defense and any alibi witness, and Hollingshead responded, but without the specificity required. 4 Sullivan is a municipality in Franklin County, Missouri.

5

Mrs. Hollingshead testified that she and her children moved into the yellow house in the summer of 1996. She claimed that Hollingshead never lived in the yellow house. Instead, Mrs. Hollingshead stated that in June 1996, Hollingshead "had been put into rehab, and his sisters came and got him and took him to Minnesota." Then, in the fall of 1996, Mrs. Hollingshead and the children moved out of the yellow house and joined Hollingshead in Minnesota, where he had been living. She stated the whole family returned to Missouri a year later. On cross-examination, the State and Mrs. Hollingshead engaged in this exchange in reference to Hollingshead's presence in the yellow house in Sullivan: State: Okay. So he never stayed in that house? Mrs. Hollingshead: No. State: Okay. Never spent the night? Mrs. Hollingshead: Not in 1996. State: Okay.

Mrs. Hollingshead: He was in Minnesota. State: Okay. Never came back home to visit? Mrs. Hollingshead: No. State: Okay. So he went months without seeing his family? Mrs. Hollingshead: He did. Hollingshead testified in his own defense, and on direct-examination stated it was not possible that he could have abused A.B. in the yellow house because during the charging period, February 7, 1996 to December 31, 1997, "[he] was in

6

Minnesota with [his] sister, Bettyjeane." He denied ever abusing A.B. or V.H. Throughout his testimony, Hollingshead struggled to recall dates, particularly what years he lived or did not live in Minnesota. He testified that years of methamphetamine use had damaged his memory. However, he was adamant that he lived in Minnesota when A.B. lived in the yellow house. On cross- examination, Hollingshead conceded that if he saw A.B. between February 7, 1996 and December 31, 1997 "it probably wasn't – wasn't much" but, that he did not believe he had seen her at all. As part of its case in rebuttal, the State called Hansmann, who had been present throughout the trial, as an undisclosed rebuttal witness. Over Hollingshead's objection, Hansmann testified that Hollingshead had resided with her in Minnesota, but she could not remember exactly when. She recalled him staying with her for approximately three months before he moved to his own place in Minnesota. Hansmann also testified that at some point during Hollingshead's stay in Minnesota, after he had moved out of her home, he returned to Missouri and "then went and got his wife and kids and moved them up to Minnesota." She recalled Hollingshead renting a truck to move the family and their belongings from Missouri to Minnesota. Hansmann also testified that by October 1997, she had moved from Minnesota back to Missouri, and by that time Hollingshead and his family were already back living in Missouri. Hollingshead contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State's presentation of Hansmann's undisclosed rebuttal testimony, and that he was prejudiced as a result. This appeal follows.

7

Standard of Review

"The trial court has broad discretion to determine the admissibility and scope of rebuttal testimony which we review for an abuse of discretion." State v. Ivy, 531 S.W.3d 108, 115 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (internal citation omitted). This Court will not interfere in the trial court's use of its discretion unless its ruling is "against the logic of the circumstances and is so unreasonable and arbitrary that it shocks the sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful, deliberate consideration." State v. Campbell, 356 S.W.3d 774, 778 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "If reasonable persons can differ about the propriety of the [] trial court's [decision], it cannot be said the trial court abused its discretion." State v. Mills, 687 S.W.3d 668, 675 (Mo. banc 2024) (internal quotation omitted). We review the trial court's ruling for prejudice, not just for mere error, and we will reverse only for errors so prejudicial that the accused is deprived of a fair trial. State v. Dodd, 711 S.W.3d 619, 626 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (internal quotation omitted). Discussion In his sole point on appeal, Hollingshead contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Hansmann to testify as a rebuttal witness to Mrs. Hollingshead's purported alibi testimony, because the State failed to disclose Hansmann as a witness prior to trial. We disagree. I. The trial court did not err in admitting Hansmann's undisclosed rebuttal testimony

8

A. Hollingshead's failure to comply with Rule 25.05(a)(5)'s alibi notice requirements relieved the State of its obligation to disclose Hansmann as a rebuttal witness

Rule 25.03(b)(2) 5 requires the State, upon written request by the defendant, to disclose the names of all witnesses it intends to call at trial. However, the Supreme Court of Missouri has held, "on numerous occasions that the rule and statutes do not apply to rebuttal witnesses." State v. Miner, 639 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Mo. banc 1982) (quoting State v. Curtis, 544 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Mo. banc 1976)).

There are two notable exceptions to the general rule that rebuttal witnesses are not required to be disclosed, only one of which is at issue in this case. Witnesses called to rebut a defense of (1) alibi, or (2) mental disease or defect must be disclosed. Campbell, 356 S.W.3d at 779 (internal citation omitted) (quoting Curtis, 544 S.W.2d at 582; Rule 25.03(A)(1)). In Curtis, the Supreme Court of Missouri held "due process requires that State rebuttal witnesses not be permitted to testify in situations where a defendant has disclosed he intends to rely on the defense of alibi (and disclosed his witnesses) and the State has failed to disclose the names of the persons to be called to rebut the defense of alibi." Curtis, 544 S.W.2d at 582 (relying on Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973)). The Curtis rule seeks to prevent fundamental unfairness of requiring a defendant to "disclose the details of his alibi" but then exposing him to "potential surprise from state witnesses refuting the matters disclosed." Ivy, 531 S.W.3d at 116. The record reflects that prior to trial, Hollingshead made a written request to the State for disclosure

5 All Rule references are to Mo. R. Civ. Pro. (2018) unless stated otherwise.

9

of the names of witnesses it intended to call at trial, and that the State's list of witnesses filed with the court did not include Hansmann. The "requirement of "reciprocal discovery" set forth in Wardius "includes defendant's responsibility to furnish the state with specific information as to the place he claimed to be at the time of the offense charged, so that the state may adequately reciprocate." Miner, 639 S.W.2d at 571 (citing Wardius, supra, 412 U.S. at 476; and Curtis, supra, 544 S.W.2d at 582). Rule 25.05(a)(5) requires that:

If defendant intends to rely on the defense of alibi and the state in its request specifies the place, date, and time of the crime charged, disclosure shall be in the form of a written statement by counsel for defendant, announcing defendant's intent and giving specific information as to the place at which defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense, and as particularly as is known, the names and addresses of the witnesses by whom defendant proposes to establish the alibi. Rule 25.05(a)(5).

Under Rule 25.05(a)(5), the defendant must disclose not only the identity of a purported alibi witness, but also specific information as to the place the alibi witness can attest the defendant was during the charging period. The defense's duty to disclose this information is triggered once the state has submitted its discovery request for alibi information specifying the place, date, and time of the charged offense. See State v. Anderson, 18 S.W. 3d 11, 15 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). Here, Hollingshead's disclosure provided no information concerning Minnesota, nor Hansmann. Hollingshead's response failed to comply with Rule 25.05(a)(5) as it provided no notice he was intending to establish he was living with Hansmann in her Minnesota home, or anywhere in Minnesota from February 7, 1996 to December 31, 1997. Nor did

10

the response indicate that Mrs. Hollingshead could attest that he was in Minnesota living with Hansmann from February 7, 1996 to December 31, 1997. The State could not have known that Hansmann's testimony would be necessary until after Hollingshead and Mrs. Hollingshead testified. Contrary to Hollingshead's argument, the State was unfairly surprised by Hollingshead's failure to disclose specific information about his alibi defense. Because Hollingshead failed to disclose such information, the State's "rebuttal witness[] need not be disclosed." State v. English, 694 S.W.3d 147, 155 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (internal quotation omitted). B. Mrs. Hollingshead was not a true alibi witness, as her testimony could not account for Hollingshead's whereabouts during the entirety of the charging period Alibi is a defense that alleges the defendant was at a different place than the location at which the crime was committed during the time the offense occurred. Miner, 639 S.W.2d at 571 (internal citation omitted). Although unable to recall specific dates during much of his testimony, Hollingshead stated that it was impossible for him to have sexually abused A.B. in the yellow house because he was living in Minnesota with Hansmann from February 7, 1996 to December 31, 1997. However, his purported alibi witness, Mrs. Hollingshead could not account for this entire period, instead she only accounted for parts of 1996. In fact, it was only Hollingshead himself who asserted he lived with Hansmann from February 7, 1996 to December 31, 1997. The record reflects Mrs. Hollingshead testified that she "can't remember what month it was when ... we moved in" to the yellow house at issue but she wanted "to say it was in the summer of [1996]." She added that in 1996 Hollingshead "had been put into rehab, and his sisters

11

came and got him and took him to Minnesota." Her testimony did not provide an alibi for February 7, 1996 to June 1996, or for any undefined period prior to Hansmann picking up Hollingshead and taking him to Minnesota. Moreover, on cross-examination when asked if Hollingshead ever spent the night in the yellow house, she responded, "not in [19]96," hence her testimony only accounted for the year 1996, but failed to address whether Hollingshead visited the yellow house in

1. Mrs. Hollingshead recalled that the family and Hollingshead moved back to

Missouri from Minnesota at an unspecified time in the fall of 1997. Again, her testimony fails to account for Hollingshead's whereabouts from the fall of 1997 to December 31,

1. Mrs. Hollingshead never addressed whether Hollingshead ever visited the yellow

house prior to moving to Minnesota, or whether Hollingshead and A.B. ever visited or stayed at the yellow house after their return to Missouri in the fall of 1997. Consequently, her testimony does not constitute true alibi testimony and the State was not required to disclose Hansmann as a rebuttal witness. See Ivy, 531 S.W.3d at 116. Finding no error, we do not address Hollingshead's claim of prejudice.

Conclusion

The trial court's decision is affirmed.

Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, P.J. Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J and James M. Dowd, J., concur.