State v. Finley
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1059
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant was charged with class A domestic assault in the first degree and armed criminal action.
- Information alleged serious physical injury from shooting the victim in the face, with family/household relationship to support domestic assault.
- Defendant waived jury trial; a judge tried and convicted him on both counts, sentencing concurrent terms of 30 and 10 years.
- Victim sustained severe injuries including loss of an eye from a gunshot; evidence showed repeated gunshots with a loaded firearm.
- Defendant argued closing argument misstated the law regarding required intent; trial court did not sua sponte intervene.
- Court applied plain-error review under Rule 30.20 to determine if any error affected substantial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court plainly erred by not sua sponte intervening in closing argument | Finley contends the state misstated the law on intent to cause serious physical injury. | Finley asserts the court should have corrected the misstatement and indicated the law's position. | No plain error; court did not err. |
| Whether a court-tried case requires sua sponte correction of closing argument | Finley argues the State's argument was improper and misleading on mens rea. | Finley maintains the court should have clarified the correct legal standard during trial. | Not required; no error. |
| Application of plain-error standard to unpreserved argument in a court-tried case | Finley relies on Rule 30.20 to obtain plain-error review. | Finley asserts manifest injustice would result from the misstatement. | Plain-error review declined; no manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Poole, 216 S.W.3d 271 (Mo. App. 2007) (presumption judges know and apply the law in court-tried cases)
- State v. Mullins, 140 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. App. 2004) (judge can disregard improper material in closing arguments)
- State v. Mandrell, 754 S.W.2d 917 (Mo. App. 1988) (closing-argument error in court-tried cases not necessarily reversible)
- State v. Harris, 710 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. App. 1986) (trial court superiority in handling improper closing material)
- State v. Chavez, 165 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. App. 2005) (trial court not required to believe unfavorable testimony)
- State v. Jackson, 248 S.W.3d 117 (Mo. App. 2008) (context for court-tried case handling of improper arguments)
- State v. Goodwin, 65 S.W.3d 17 (Mo. App. 2001) (multifaceted points and appellate briefing standards)
- State v. Agee, 350 S.W.3d 83 (Mo. App. 2011) (multifarious-point doctrine and review scope)
- State v. Yarbrough, 332 S.W.3d 882 (Mo. App. 2011) (briefing noncompliance may not impede review)