Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael FRENCH, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-05-31
Citations: 495 S.W.3d 783
Docket Number: No. ED 102376
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael FRENCH, Appellant.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 495
Pages: 783–783

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael FRENCH, Appellant.
No. ED 102376
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Filed: May 31, 2016
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 18, 2016
Application for Transfer Denied September 20, 2016
FOR APPELLANT: Michael A. Gross, Michael Gross Law Office, 231 South Be-miston Avenue, Suite 250, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.
FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory "L. Barnes, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri, 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER Curiam
Michael French (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his motion for a new trial. On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred when it: (1) allegedly invited jury panelists to refrain from disclosing information during voir dire that might reveal relevant life experiences or prejudices; (2) denied Appellant's Batson objection; (3) allowed the State to ask a defense witness whether Appellant had been with her when she was arrested for possession of a controlled substance; and (4) allowed the State to improperly bolster a witness's testimony during closing arguments, In his fifth point on appeal, Appellant asks that we exercise our inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice and remand the case for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm Appellant's conviction on all points. ,
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We hávé, however, provided á memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for óur decision. Rule 30.25(b).