# State v. Revelle

> Missouri Court of Appeals · November 12, 1997 · 957 S.W.2d 428

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777583

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. George Stanley REVELLE, Appellant
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 12, 1997
- **Citations:** 957 S.W.2d 428; 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1967; 1997 WL 702588
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Parrish
- **Judges:** Robert E. Crist
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777583

## Opinion text

PARRISH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the principal opinion and in the concurring opinion of Judge Shrum. In doing so I have considered the dissenting opinions herein and find it appropriate to refer to one of the cases from which a quotation appears in Judge Prewitt’s dissenting opinion.
In contending the defendant in this case should not be permitted to complain on appeal about the admission in evidence of the victim’s memo because defendant’s attorney referred to it in opening statement, Judge Prewitt’s dissenting opinion quotes a statement in Bushong v. Marathon Electric Mfg. Corp., 719 S.W.2d 828, 841 (Mo.App.1986), “Plaintiff may not complain of the admission into evidence of the result of the blood test because plaintiffs counsel himself conveyed that information to the jury during his opening statement.” The statement in Bushong , however, is followed by, “ ‘[A] party who has introduced evidence concerning a certain fact may not on appeal complain that his opponent was allowed to introduce related evidence, in rebuttal or explanation.’ 5 Am. Jur.2d App. and Err., § 716, p. 163.”
In Bushong the jury was told that certain evidence would be introduced by plaintiff. Plaintiff thereafter introduced that evidence then sought to complain on appeal about the evidence (which he had unsuccessfully sought to preclude by a pre-trial motion in limine). In this ease the evidence was introduced, over defendant’s objection, by the state, not by the party who complains on appeal. For that reason I do not find Bushong to be applicable to this case.
Defendant’s trial attorney referred to the memo in his opening statement. However, the jury in this case, as in every other criminal case, was instructed, “The opening statements of attorneys are not evidence.” MAJOR 3d 302.02. Cases holding that jurors are presumed to follow the instructions of the court are legion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777583. Public record. Not legal advice.