State v. Cannady
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 92
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Cannady appeals her conviction for first-degree assault for throwing hot grease on Victim to cause serious physical injury.
- Victim and Appellant had a long and troubled history; Victim was in a relationship with Hill and had children fathered by him; Appellant also had children with Hill.
- Incident occurred around 5:00 a.m. in Hill’s home; Victim was attacked on stairs after an exchange in the kitchen, and Appellant fled upstairs with a knife.
- Victim sustained extensive burns requiring hospitalization and a skin graft; photographs documented Victim’s injuries over time.
- Evidence showed grease splatters on walls and clothing consistent with the attack; Appellant was found hiding in a garage with grease on her shirt.
- Trial resulted in a jury verdict of guilty of first-degree assault and a 15-year sentence; Appellant challenges two trial court rulings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closing argument plain error | Cannady contends the closing misstated intent and caused prejudice. | State argues no manifest injustice; closing argument inference is permissible. | Plain error not shown; no manifest injustice; argument within reasonable inference. |
| Admission of photographs | Cannady argues photos were irrelevant, cumulative, more prejudicial than probative. | State contends photographs aided understanding of injuries and progression. | Photographs properly admitted to illustrate injuries and progression; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vanlue, 216 S.W.3d 729 (MoApp. S.D. 2007) (plain-error review is narrow and seldom found in closing argument)
- State v. Kennedy, 107 S.W.3d 306 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003) (decisional to plain-error review requires manifest injustice)
- State v. Miller, 226 S.W.3d 262 (MoApp. S.D. 2007) (prosecution may draw reasonable inferences in closing)
- State v. Sperling, 353 S.W.3d 381 (Mo.App. S.D. 2011) (gruesome photos admissible if probative outweighs prejudicial effect)
- State v. Jaco, 156 S.W.3d 775 (Mo. banc 2005) (photographs admissible to show nature and location of wounds)
- State v. Mort, 321 S.W.3d 471 (Mo.App. S.D. 2010) (gruesomeness aligns with nature of crime; relevance preserved for jury understanding)