Opinion ID: 2408540
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Inference on Why Kenley Apologized

Text: Rebutting defense counsel's argument that Kenley had apologized to Ms. Robart for taking her hostage and that Kenley's prison behavior had improved, the prosecutor stated: She talked about apologizing to Judy Robart. Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to youKenneth Kenley knew he was going to come back in front of some jury somewhere and that he was going to be evidence for that jury to consider and would it not be in his best interest to go to this woman and apologize? The same thing with these conduct violations.... But perhaps somewhere along the way it dawns on him or maybe somebody tells himHey, you're going back to trial soon. Toe the line. Kenley asserts that this statement constitutes improper personalization and opinion evidence. A party, however, may argue reasonable inferences justified by the evidence. State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 314 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 403, 136 L.Ed.2d 317 (1996). Defense counsel opened the door to this argument by inferring that Kenley apologized or decreased the number of conduct violations because he had turned over a new leaf. It was reasonable for the prosecutor to counter this argument with the fact that Kenley had other potential motives for his behavior. The argument was not improper and counsel was not ineffective for failing to object.