Witnesses Take the Stand in Alleged Sodomy, Molestation Case

PROTECTED CONTENT

If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.

Username

Password

Login

Lost your password?

Username and Password Help

Please enter your email and we will send your username and password to you.

Email

Submit

← Back

By Echo Menges and Marlana Smith

A preliminary hearing was held in case No. 22SC-00020, State of Missouri versus David Kiser, at the Shelby County Courthouse on Wednesday, May 18, 2022. Kiser stands accused of one felony count of statutory sodomy – first degree – deviant sexual intercourse with a person less than 14 years old, and one felony count of child molestation – second degree – victim less than 14 years old – in the most recent criminal case filed against him.

The crimes are alleged to have occurred sometime in 2014, between January 1 and December 31.

Kiser appeared in court with his defense attorney Stephen Porter. The State was represented by special prosecuting attorney Joshua W. Meisner.

Macon County Associate Circuit Judge Kristin D. Burks presided over the hearing.

During the hearing, two witnesses were called by the prosecution, Detective Kade Singleton and Forensic Interviewer Jessica Homeyer. One witness was called by the defense, Child Protection Specialist Kelsey McCoy.

Testimony from Detective Singleton

Former Shelby County Sheriff’s Deputy and current North Missouri Drug Task Force Detective Kade Singleton was the first witness called to the stand by prosecutor Meisner.

Singleton testified he began working at the SCSO in 2015 and remained until taking a position with the task force in 2021.

Singleton told the court he first became aware of David Kiser in October of 2019.

“I became familiar with Mr. Kiser through a report from the Marion County Sheriff’s Department where he was a suspect in a sexual assault case,” said Detective Kade Singleton.

“I received the report from the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, reviewed their report, and then I made contact with Mr. Kiser and had him come in to speak with me,” said Singleton.

Singleton testified Kiser denied the allegations against him.

“Was there anything significant to you about that interview, aside from the denial?” special prosecutor Joshua Meisner asked the witness.

“Whenever I brought up the incidents in question, Mr. Kiser seemed to recall the incidents – even though they had happened years past,” said Singleton.

“Okay. And, when you say ‘the incidents’ you’re talking about the circumstances surrounding the actual allegations that are charged in this case?” asked Meisner.

“Correct, sir,” replied Singleton.

“When he described those events, was it similar to the events that were reported by the victim in this case?” asked Meisner.

“Yes, sir. It was,” replied Singleton.

“Except for the part of the actual charge?” asked Meisner.

“Yes, sir,” replied Singleton.

“When did those events that he described, that were also described by (name excluded) the victim in this case? When did those occur?” asked Meisner.

“I believe to be whenever the victim was approximately five years of age,” replied Singleton.

During the prosecution’s questioning, Kiser’s defense attorney objected to the use of the term “victim”.

“Your Honor, I’m going to object to the use of the term victim without alleged victim. My client’s presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The United States Constitution says so. The Missouri Constitution says so. And quite frankly, Your Honor, I’m getting tired of people using the word victim in a case where we don’t have a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” said defense attorney Stephen Porter.

“Mr. Porter, your objection is noted. For the sake of your client, please know that the use of the term victim by the State or by a witness is, or by the State, is not proof in the mind of the court. And the court will note that any use of the term victim is not a legal conclusion. In the court’s mind, it is alleged victim,” Macon County Associate Circuit Judge Kristin D. Burks told Porter.

Singleton testified he met with the child after meeting with Kiser.

“(Name excluded) came to the Sheriff’s office. She was accompanied by her father or legal guardian. I spoke with (name excluded) in reference to the allegations that she had already talked about in the CAC (Child Advocacy Center) interview. She provided me with a drawing of where everybody was in the room, whenever the incident occurred, both in the living room and in the bedroom,” Singleton told Meisner.

Singleton testified he did not speak to the child about the allegations against Kiser.

“In addition to providing information about the surroundings or the setting where the events occurred, did she tell you what happened?” Meisner asked Singleton.

“I do not recall actually getting into the physical aspect of it with (name excluded). She had already made her statement within the CAC interview and I felt that was a better place for that to occur rather than with me,” Singleton told Meisner.

“So, you didn’t ask her specific details then – it sounds like?” Meisner asked Singleton.

“No sir,” replied Singleton.

“Why is that?” asked Meisner.

“Because of the CAC interview. She had already disclosed the information to the counselor, whether at the Rainbow House or with the Child Center. Just for comfort sake. I didn’t ask questions,” replied Singleton.

Under cross examination by defense attorney Porter, Singleton testified Kiser freely went to the SCSO to answer the investigator’s questions and filled out a statement.

“Is it true in this statement that he recalls some of the events alleged by (name excluded),” Porter asked Singleton.

“Yes, sir,” replied Singleton.

“And you find that evidence of guilt?” asked Porter.

“Not for me to decide, sir,” replied Singleton.

Porter entered exhibit B into evidence, which was the handwritten statement of Kiser dated November 4, 2019.

“To your knowledge, is there any physical evidence in this case?” Porter asked Singleton.

“Not to my knowledge, no, sir,” Singleton replied.

“So is the sum total of the evidence, to your knowledge, (name excluded) statements against David Kiser?” Porter asked Singleton.

“Yes, sir,” Singleton replied.

Singleton told the court another child was brought to the SCSO to be interviewed about the incidents alleged at the Kiser home. The other child was also interviewed at the SCSO and the interviews with both children were recorded on December 20, 2021.

Singleton also explained two more exhibits entered into evidence by the defense.

“Exhibit C is the drawing that (name excluded) provided of the living room of Mr. Kiser’s, where she was in relation to where Mr. Kiser was or Mrs. Kiser was,” Singleton said.

“And what’s exhibit D?” asked Porter.

“Exhibit D is the bedroom where the second incident had a group,” replied Singleton.

“Was (name excluded) unable to be more specific as to the date and time?” Porter asked Singleton.

“Due to the age. I mean, it’s very common for, for age, not to remember. I mean, kids block that stuff out,” Singleton replied.

Singleton also testified that the child was approximately 14 years old at the time of the interview at the SCSO.

Testimony from Forensic Interviewer Jessica Homeyer

Forensic Interviewer for Hannibal, MO, based Child Advocacy Center Jessica Homeyer took the stand and testified she interviewed the child about the allegations against Kiser.

“When did you start doing interviews?” Meisner asked Homeyer.

“In May of 2016,” replied Forensic Interviewer Jessica Homeyer.

“How many interviews have you conducted since that time?” asked Meisner.

“Approximately 800,” replied Homeyer.

“Can you describe how an interview occurs – the setting and just the circumstances surrounding an interview that you would conduct?” Meisner asked Homeyer.

“We received a referral that is then scheduled with the multidisciplinary team and the family. When the family arrives at the center, they go to a waiting room while the parents or caregiver does some paperwork. I show the child or children the room. And meet with the multidisciplinary team prior to the interview and then the child. And I go into the interview room while the multidisciplinary team watches the interview. I conduct the interview, and then the child is returned back to their parents,” Homeyer replied.

“You say the multidisciplinary team watches but they’re in a different room. Can you kind of describe how that works?” asked Meisner.

“There’s a camera and microphone in the interview room that is connected to a TV, and the conference room, and that’s where they watch it from,” replied Homeyer.

“And what’s the purpose of having other members of that multidisciplinary team present at the interview?” asked Meisner.

“They are the people that are investigating whether or not something has happened and whether or not there will be charges or findings for children’s division,” replied Homeyer.

Homeyer told the court the child was 13 or 14 years old at the time of the interview.

“During your interview, were there disclosures made?” Meisner asked Homeyer.

“Yes,” replied Homeyer.

“Those disclosures involved the defendant in this case, David Kiser?” Meisner asked Homeyer.

“Yes,” replied Homeyer.

“And, the entire interview was recorded?” asked Meisner.

“Yes,” replied Homeyer.

Meisner submitted a DVD of the forensic interview to the court, entering it into evidence as exhibit one with no objection from the defense.

Under cross examination by Porter, Homeyer told the court she also interviewed the other child about what allegedly occurred at the Kiser home. Homeyer also told Porter and the court that she uses the Child First protocol when conducting forensic interviews.

“Did your training in the proper use of the Child First protocols involve learning that there were certain sequences of words that you could use to have the child say what you want the child to say?” asked Porter.

“No. I mean, we discussed leading questions and not using them, but not sequencing words,” replied Homeyer.

“Do you not recall any part of your training, including sequences of words, that can manipulate another person to tell you what you want to hear?” Porter asked.

“I don’t recall that specifically,” said Homeyer.

Later during cross examination, Porter asked Homeyer, “Are you seeking the truth?”

“I am seeking their experience,” Homeyer replied.

“You’re seeking their experience?” Porter pressed.

“Yes,” replied Homeyer.

“Whether it’s true or false?” asked Porter.

“I am there as an unbiased fact finding person to allow the child to talk about their experience,” replied Homeyer.

Testimony from Child Protection Specialist Kelsey McCoy

The defense’s only witness was Child Protection Specialist Kelsey McCoy, who investigated the allegations against Kiser for the Missouri Children’s Division in Marion County. McCoy told the court she worked for the children’s division between March of 2018 and November of 2020 before taking her current position at the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

“When you worked for the Marion County Children’s Division, what were your duties?” Porter asked McCoy.

“I was an investigator there. I was the initial point of contact for incoming hotlines,” Child Protection Specialist Kelsey McCoy replied.

“So explain how that works,” said Porter.

“A report is received, and then assigned to an investigator – me or one of my coworkers. And then, we initiate contact with the family and the children listed on the report and determine safety and any intervention that’s necessary to ensure safety of the children,” McCoy explained.

McCoy told the court that the child told a school counselor about the alleged incident with Kiser at the Kiser home, and the report was hotlined.

“The hotline call gets assigned to you. And what did you do?” asked Porter.

“I reviewed the information and spoke with the school staff who had been in contact with the children involved in the report. And then, made the determination to make the referral for the CAC interviews,” replied McCoy.

“And so you made the referral that Jessica Homeyer testified about?” asked Porter.

“Yes,” replied McCoy.

“And then, did you have anything else to do in the investigation after making the referral to Ms. Homeyer?” asked Porter.

“Yes,” said McCoy.

“What else did you do?” asked Porter.

“I was part of the multidisciplinary team that observed the interview. And then, I spoke with law enforcement, attempted contact with the alleged perpetrators on the report. And, spoke with you, actually, as part of that investigation,” replied McCoy.

“As an attorney for David Kiser?” said Porter.

“Yes,” replied McCoy.

“What else did you do?” asked Porter.

“I sent a courtesy request to the Shelby County Children’s Division to attempt to make contact with David Kiser as he lived outside of the counties in which I worked,” replied McCoy.

“And did you ever speak with David Kiser about the allegations made against him?” asked Porter.

“I did not,” replied McCoy.

“You spoke with his attorney instead?” said Porter.

“Yes,” replied McCoy.

“Me?” said Porter.

“Yes,” replied McCoy.

McCoy told the court that she and her supervisor, CN Hess, decided to close the children’s division investigation against Kiser.

“And what did you and CN Hess conclude?” Porter asked McCoy.

“We concluded that the only information we had regarding the allegations against Mr. Kiser were the interview from (name excluded) and with the conversation I had with you, it was clear that Mr. Kiser was denying the allegation. His wife was allegedly present for the incident that supposedly took place. She was also denying the allegation, and therefore we did not feel as if we had enough evidence to say that Mr. Kiser was for sure the alleged perpetrator or the perpetrator in this incident,” McCoy replied.

“And what other conclusion did you make?” Porter asked McCoy.

“I did feel and do feel confident that (names excluded) were both victims of sexual abuse. I was just unable to say who the perpetrator was,” replied McCoy.

Porter introduced exhibit A into evidence, which is the letter McCoy sent to Kiser at the end of her investigation dated January 20, 2020.

During cross examination, McCoy answered questions from Meisner.

“Have you become aware of additional allegations against Mr. Kiser since that time?” Meisner asked McCoy.

“Just through news outlets. Yes,” said McCoy.

“So, anything that was learned, any new information from January of 2020 that could have changed your opinion about what happened?” asked Meisner.

“Potentially. Depending upon the information that was received,” said McCoy.

Preliminary Hearing Concludes

The hearing lasted from approximately 10:06 a.m. to 11:51 a.m., when Judge Burks went into recess to watch the audio/video CAC forensic interview. After watching the interview, Judge Burks ruled there is enough evidence to bind the case over from Associate Circuit Court to Circuit Court.

Kiser is scheduled to appear before 41st Circuit Judge Fredrick Paul Tucker for an arraignment on Thursday, June 23, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. at the Shelby County Courthouse.

In the other pending criminal case against Kiser, case No. 22SB-CR00005-01, Kiser is facing two counts of sodomy or attempted sodomy – first degree – victim less than 12 years old. The defendant is accused of molesting a child while the child was in the care of his wife, Tina Kiser, at her home daycare in Shelbyville, MO.

Judge Rachel Bringer Shepherd was appointed to the case (22SC-CR00005-01) after a change of judge was requested by the defense on April 28, 2022.

Preliminary hearings are held to determine whether there is enough evidence for a criminal case to proceed from Associate Circuit Court to Circuit Court. A case being bound over from associate to circuit court should not be taken as evidence of guilt of a defendant. Guilt may only be determined by a jury, a judge during a bench trial, or the defendant by pleading guilty.

David Kiser is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.