Appeals court: No new trial for Neosho man who raped, sodomized 13-year-old in 2006

A Neosho man serving a 40-year sentence for statutory sodomy and a 30-year sentence for statutory rape will not receive a new trial.

In a unanimous opinion issued today, the Missouri Southern District Court of Appeals rejected Jeffrey Jendro's claim that he received ineffective counsel.

Jendro, 56, was already rejected by the panel in 2007, but received another shot due to several changes in lawyers and delays.

Jendro was found guilty by a Newton County jury February 8, 2007, with the case the jury heard described in the court's earlier opinion:

On the evening of August 3, 2006, defendant asked the 13-year-old victim if she would like to go with him to buy beer. She told him she would. Defendant told her he had told her mother she was going with him. They went to a convenience store where defendant bought beer.

Defendant was employed as a truck driver. After leaving the convenience store, defendant told victim that he had something for her and that he wanted to get cigarettes from the semi truck he drove in his work.   

When they arrived at the truck, defendant told victim that she needed to climb into the cab of the truck with him. Victim climbed into the cab of the truck. Defendant stepped into the cab immediately behind her. Defendant told her to go into the sleeping area located behind the driver's and passenger's seats.   Victim stepped into that area and sat on the edge of the bunk located there. 

Defendant sat down beside her and pulled a Wal-Mart bag from an overhead compartment of the truck. It contained a pink, sheer, silk nightgown with sequins and matching panties. Defendant told victim to put on the garments. She told him she did not want to. Defendant told her to put them on and he would take pictures of her for her boyfriend. Victim argued, telling defendant she “wasn't like that.”

After arguing, victim put on the nightgown and panties over a sports bra and underwear that she was wearing. Defendant attempted to take pictures with a digital camera, but the batteries in the camera were dead. After unsuccessfully trying to take pictures, defendant began touching victim's legs. 

(The next few paragraphs detailed a number of acts Jendro forced on the girl, including sexual intercourse and oral sex.)

 

At some point victim's brother told their mom that she had better look for victim; that victim “had been gone for awhile.” Victim's mother went to the truck, got into the truck, and found defendant and victim.  Defendant was wearing no clothes when victim's mother found them.Victim was wearing no clothes.   Victim was asked the following questions and gave the following answers.

Q. What did you do when you saw your mom?

A. I said, “Thank God,” and I was just happy to see her.

Q. Did she take you away from there then?

A. Yes.

Q. And after they took you away from there, after your mama rescued you, what happened next?

A. We went home and she called the police.

One of the things Jendro objected to was the Newton County prosecutor referring to him as an "animal," a reference that was made several times including in closing arguments.

The description, however, came from a letter Jendro wrote, as was noted in the earlier court opinion:

The state's comments in closing argument that characterized defendant as “an animal” and addressed the remedy to prevent his children from fearing him alluded to statements defendant made in letters to his wife that were sent while he was in jail awaiting trial in this case.   

Defendant stated, “I may be an animal and need serious treatment but Im [sic] not a violent rapist.”  

Defendant concluded the letter with the statement, “From the animal in his cage.”  

In another letter defendant stated he would “even sign over [his] parental rights.” He added, “And you won't have to worry about hiding the kids from two bad dads.”   The letters were admitted in evidence.

The prosecuting attorney's remarks in closing argument referred to defendant's letters. His comments included that he agreed with defendant's assessment that he was an animal; and, at the end of the final argument in the guilt phase of the trial, the prosecutor stated, “He's an animal. He says it himself.   Let's cage him.”   

The prosecutor also alluded to defendant's children. He stated that there was a remedy that could keep the children “from ever fearing him again.”

In today's decision, the court affirmed the conviction on three of the counts Jendro raised and dismissed the other two counts because they were not made in a timely manner.