Opinion

State v. Fanning

  • 647 S.W.2d 177
  • 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 3847
Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Filed
Feb 1, 1983
Status
Published
Author
Prewitt
On the bench
Prewitt, Maus, Hogan
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 85.7%

The opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

By jury trial, appellant was convicted of burglary, attempted robbery, and three counts of assault. During the rebuttal portion of the state’s closing argument the transcript shows that the following occurred:

[DAVID GEISLER, prosecuting attorney:] “Now, my personal opinion as to whether or not he’s guilty, that doesn’t mean a thing, because I have not testified in this case. But Mr. Moon gave his opinion, and I’m going to give you mine. The son-of-a-bitch (indicating) is guilty as hell.—

MR. W. MOON: —If the Court please, I object to the use of the vulgar slang language in this Court Room by the Prosecutor—

MR. GEISLER — I apologize, Your Honor.—

MR. W. MOON: —to the jury, the Court, and the witnesses, and the people in the Court Room.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Geisler has apologized. I accept your apology, Mr. Geisler.”

Appellant now contends that the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial because of the prosecutor’s comments.

*

This contention was not presented for appellate review. No request for mistrial was made on this ground during the trial.

Requests for relief from improper argument must be timely made to preserve them for appellate review.

State v. Brown,

611 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Mo.App.1980). By failing to request a mistrial appellant has not preserved his point for review.

State v. Ginnery,

617 S.W.2d 117, 120 (Mo.App.1981). A party cannot fail to request relief, gamble on the verdict and then if adverse, request relief for the first time.

State v. Meiers,

412 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Mo.1967);

State v. Brown,

supra, 611 S.W.2d at 302 ;

State v. Miller,

593 S.W.2d 895, 897 (Mo.App.1980).

*179

Plain error review under Rule 30.20 is not appropriate as we cannot say from the record that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted. See

State v. Newlon,

627 S.W.2d 606, 616 (Mo.banc 1982);

State v. Johnson,

615 S.W.2d 534, 540 (Mo.App.1981).

The judgment is affirmed.

MAUS, P.J., and HOGAN, J., concur.

*

As respondent admitted in oral argument the remarks were improper. See

State v. Stockbridge,

549 S.W.2d 648, 651 (Mo.App.1977). See also

State v. Newlon,

627 S.W.2d 606, 616-617 (Mo.banc 1982). Respondent’s brief termed them “regrettable”, but “clearly inadvertent, as evidenced by Mr. Geisler’s rapid apology.” Whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial if a timely request had been made we do not decide.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.