Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): you are going to be a victim, then you better make sure it happens in a crowd,” and “you better make sure it happens for a long time” (emphasis added), had the effect of personalizing the argument by placing the jury members in the victim’s place. Closing argument that personalizes has been repeatedly criticized. Although we do not approve of the argument, it is not reversible error. State v. Norton, 949 S.W.2d 672, 677 (Mo.App.1997). The argument did not have a decisive effect on the verdict. The victim made a positive identification and the defendant was apprehended with the victim’s vehicle two days following the commission of the crime with the victim’s knife on his person. There was substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt. State v. Baller, 949 S.W.2d 269, 273 (Mo.App.1997)(<HOLDING>). There is no manifest injustice. Point denied. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the complained of statements may be improper personalizations but plain error does not embrace all errors and defendant has not demonstrated manifest injustice (B) holding that cumulative  effect of multiple errors worked to deprive defendant of fair trial although  some errors standing alone would be subject to plain error review and others might be harmless (C) holding that errors not rising to level of plain error are to be considered in assessing cumulative error (D) recognizing that four reasons for granting a rule 59e motion are manifest errors of law or fact newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence manifest injustice and an intervening change in controlling law (E) holding counsel cannot be ineffective based on errors that the appellate court determined on direct appeal were not errors plain or otherwise
Output (English): holding counsel cannot be ineffective based on errors that the appellate court determined on direct appeal were not errors plain or otherwise