Opinion ID: 2541567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Point Three: Improper Closing Arguments

Text: Tisius claims the circuit court plainly erred by failing to intercede sua sponte at multiple times during the State's closing argument. Tisius suggests several of the State's comments were improper and resulted in manifest injustice. Tisius acknowledges his trial counsel did not object to the State's statements during closing argument, and thus, plain error is the review standard. Rule 30.20. It is particularly difficult to obtain relief based on an assertion of plain error concerning closing argument because the failure to object during closing argument is more likely a function of trial strategy than of error. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d at 543. Plain error relief seldom is granted on assertions of error relating to closing arguments because absence of an objection and request for relief during closing arguments mean that any intervention by the circuit court would have been uninvited and may have caused increased error. State v. Perry, 275 S.W.3d 237, 245 (Mo. banc 2009). Therefore, to be entitled to relief under plain error review, Tisius must establish that the improper argument had a decisive effect on the outcome of the trial and amounts to manifest injustice. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d at 543. Tisius bears the burden to prove the decisive effect. Id.