Case ID: sw2d_945/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William COLEMAN, Appellant.
    No. WD 52913.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    May 20, 1997.
    Irene Karns, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Jacqueline K. Hamra, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and HANNA, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Coleman appeals his conviction for felony nonsupport. He argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial, after his former wife testified at trial that she withheld Mr. Coleman’s visitation from his daughter because she suspected he molested their daughter, violated his rights to due process and a fair trial. We find that the court’s curative instruction to the jury removed any prejudice resulting from the erroneous admission of the evidence of other uncharged misconduct, and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Mr. Coleman a mistrial. Finding no precedential value to our decision, we affirm by this summary order but have provided the parties with a memorandum setting out the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).