Introduction
William A. Galvin (Defendant) appeals from a sentence and judgment of conviction for second-degree murder after a bench trial. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction but argues the triаl court erred in allowing certain statements by the State
Background
The State charged Defendant with the class A felony of murder in the second degree.’
Defendant lived with his girlfriend and her mother, Bonnie Brown (the Victim). On May 9, 2011, between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m., Defendant spoke with the teller at his bank, telling her that the Victim had died of an overdose. The teller testified that Defendant smelled of alcohol. Later that morning, around 10:20 a.m., Defendant called 911 to report a break-in and murder, telling the dispatcher that he had just returned home from Springfield to discover the door kicked in and the Victim dead in her bedroom. The .respоnding officers testified Defendant was “noticeably intoxicated.” During his interview with police, Defendant alternatively stated that he had returned home from Springfield early in the day and not discovered the Victim until after he had gone to the bank, and that hе had discovered the Victim’s body and then gone to the bank, calling 911 when he returned home. He later agreed he had not gone to Springfield at all.
Michael Pavia, an inmate with Defendant, testified Defendant told him he had not meant to kill the Victim. Defendant and the Victim had argued in the evening, but had gone their separate ways. He then drank vodka all night, and when the argument resumed in the morning, he had strangled her. When he could not revive her, he kicked in the door to make it look like a break-in.
Sergeant Ryan McCarrick (Sergeant McCarrick) testified to the following. He had been employed with the Lincoln County Sheriffs Office since 2005, and he was a member of the. Major Case Squad, which is a group of Metropolitan-area law-enforcement agencies that share manpower to handle serious crimes, such as homicides. Since becoming an investigator, he had had 600 hours of training, including attending the 'Medical/Legal Death Investigation course at St. Louis University School of Pathology, a four-day Death and Homicide class, a three-day Child Death and Homicide class, two International Homicide Investigator seminars, and the Medical and Coroner’s symposium. As part of the training, he had learned signs to look for in determining whether a deаth was “potentially from a homicide,” including strangulation cases. The trial court overruled defense counsel’s objection that Sergeant McCarrick was not testifying as an expert, and he testified that in strangulation cases he looked for ligature marks, petechiae
In this case, when Sergeant McCarrick arrived at the scene and observed the body of the Victim, he noted her upper torso, head and neck were blueish, there were red marks on her neck, and there were
Dr. Kamаl Sabharwal (Dr. Sabharwal), the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, testified that he had concluded the Victim’s cause of death was strangulation and the manner of death was homicide. He testified to the signs of strangulation he noted on the Victim’s body. While he also noted the Victim had heart disease, he testified “the [Victim’s] other injuries were more significant than the cardiac disease as far as causing her death in this case.” By contrast, Defendant presented evidence from T>x. Thomas Young (Dr. Young), a self-employed forensic pathologist, who reviewed the autopsy report, the Victim’s medical records, and photographs of the crime scene and autopsy, and concluded the Victim died from heart disеase and not strangulation.
Leatha Clark (Clark), the Victim’s daughter and-Defendant’s girlfriend, testified that at the time of the murder, she was in the county jail. Clark testified that when she walked through the house after the murder, she found an empty bottle of vodka in her and Defendant’s room. Clark agreed that Defendant was “a drinker,” and he had been told to quit after having gallbladder surgery. Defendant had agreed to quit drinking, but Clark confirmed that the empty bottle of vodka in their room was not hers, She further testified the Victim would argue with Defеndant about his drinking. She stated that the Victim “liked [Defendant] better when he didn’t drink,” and that he was loud and made the Victim “nervous” when he drank. On cross-examination, Defendant’s counsel introduced letters the Victim had sent to Clark in jail showing the Victim and Defendant got along well.
During closing arguments, defense counsel argued: “this was a family. [The Victim] and [Defendant] lived in the same house and Leatha Clark lived in the same house and they all got along and they all shared expenses and they all laughed together; they carеd about; each other. There’s no evidence to the contrary.” In response, the State argued: “This [was] a happy family all living together under one roof except for [the Victim] was scared of [Defendant] because he was a drunk аnd they would have fights, when he would drink.” Defense counsel objected on the basis of mischaracterizing the evidence, but the trial court overruled the objection.
At the close of evidence, the trial court found Defendant guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced him .to twenty-five years’ imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. 'This appeal follows.
Discussion
Point I.
In his first point on appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling the defense counsel’s objection tо the State’s assertion during closing arguments that the Victim “was scared of [Defendant] because he was a drunk and they would have fights when he would drink,” because it was a misstatement of the facts. We disagree.
A trial court has broad discretion in its control over closing arguments, and our review is for an abuse of that discretion. State v. Forrest,
Defendant asserts on appeal that the State’s characterization of Defendant during closing arguments as “a drunk” of whom the Victim was “scared” when he drank was both an improper mischaracter-ization of the evidence and was prejudicial. His argument fаils on both fronts. “The State, just like the defense, has wide latitude in drawing inferences from the record when presenting its closing argument.” Forrest,
' Moreover, Defendant was not prejudiced by the State’s characterization, because he has not shown that there wаs a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different had the - trial court sustained his objection to the State’s comment. See Taylor,
The trial court did not abuse its discretion is overruling defense counsel’s objections to the State’s comment during closing argument. Point denied.
Point II
In his second point on appeal. Defendant asserts the trial court erred in overruling Defendant’s objection to the testimony of Sergeant McCarrick as to the signs of strangulation, oh the basis that Sergeant McCarrick was not qualified аs an expert witness to discuss medical evidence. This argument is without merit.
We review a trial court’s, decision on the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. State v. Winfrey,
Here, Defendant characterizes Sergeant McCarrick’s testimony as expert medical testimony, .arguing that his description of the signs of strangulation was “essentially testimony] that [the Victim] died from strangulation,” which was testimony that “shоuld have been reserved for a medical doctor.” Our review of the record shows that Sergeant McCarrick did not testify the Victim died of strangulation and his testimony did not purport to be medical testimony. Rather, Sergeant McCarrick testified to his basis for suspecting a homicide and his decision to call in a specialized team of investigators, the Major Case Squad.
It is permissible for an officer to testify concerning their observation of a fact based on the witness’ experience as a police officer. State v. Woodson,
The trial cоurt did not abuse its discretion by allowing Sergeant McCarrick to testify to the signs of strangulation. Point denied.
Conclmsion
'The judgment-and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.
Notes
. The State also charged Defendant with the class D felony of financial exploitation of the elderly, but the State dismissed this count before trial.
. State v. Miller,
. Defendant attempted to mitigate this evidence by introducing testimony from Pavia’s former cell-mate that Pavia had told him he read Defendant’s discovery documents with the goal of reducing his own sentence.
.Dr. Kamal Sabharwal testified that petechi-ae are pinprick hemorrhages visible on the skin and in the eyes, caused by broken blood vessels.