STATE OF MISSOURI v. EUGENE CULPEPPER, JR.

I concur with the result, however, I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority opinion’s analysis regarding the exclusion of evidence of Durgan’s (Victim’s long-term boyfriend) past violent acts against Duck (“Victim”). The majority analysis finds that the proffered evidence was disconnected and remote and, thus, not admissible. I disagree. Only four people were, present at the time that Victim was shot; one of them was Victim’s boyfriend. Victim’s testimony included the fact that she had been using drugs on the night in question and was confused as to what actually…