Opinion ID: 2433485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Bailey and Henry Testimony

Text: Nicklasson assigns error to the trial court's refusal to let defense counsel, Bailey and Henry, testify that they made constant efforts to keep [Nicklasson] composed during the trial because of their fear that he would erupt in the courtroom. The defense sought to offer this testimony after the state asked Dr. Robert Geffner on cross-examination: Q: It's my understanding that that makes it more likely that that defendant is going to go off; is that right? A: If he perceives it as stressful and his stress level goes high, that is accurate. Q: Well, do you think sitting in a courtroom on trial for capital murder is a stressful situation? Nicklasson characterizes the purpose of this question as showing that Nicklasson did not suffer from a mental disease or defect because he did not act out during the trial. The trial court sustained a defense objection to this question and denied defense request for a cautionary instruction and for a mistrial. Because the trial court observes the testimony and its impact, appellate review of remedial action to correct improper questioning is for abuse of discretion. State v. Parker, 886 S.W.2d at 908, 922 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1098, 115 S.Ct. 1827, 131 L.Ed.2d 748 (1995); State v. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d 1, 9 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1262, 111 S.Ct. 2918, 115 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1991). Giving the trial court the benefit of its superior position to weigh the impact of this question, we cannot say that the trial court erred in sustaining the objection and in refusing to give a limiting instruction or declare a mistrial or in refusing to permit Nicklasson's counsel to testify as to their efforts to keep Nicklasson from acting out at trial.