Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Anthony P. SMITH, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-12-26
Citations: 34 S.W.3d 850
Docket Number: No. ED 77144
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Anthony P. SMITH, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before MOONEY, P.J., SIMON and SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 34
Pages: 850–851

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Anthony P. SMITH, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 77144.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Dec. 26, 2000.
Ellen H. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Adriane D. Crouse, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.
Before MOONEY, P.J., SIMON and SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Anthony P. Smith ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment of conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's objection to evidence and to argument submitted by the defense that Angela Bolling killed their daughter Madelyn. See State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 55 (Mo. banc 1998). We also conclude that Defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating that a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice resulted from the trial court failing to instruct the jury to disregard the prosecutor's improper speaking objection during Defendant's testimony, and thus the trial court did not plainly err. See State v. Tokar, 918 S.W.2d 753, 770 (Mo. banc 1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).