Opinion ID: 1652376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 32

Heading: Unpreserved Objections

Text: We are hesitant to exercise our plain error review of closing arguments. Appellate review of assertions of plain error in a prosecution's closing argument pressures trial courts into the situation of `uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase in the risk of error by such intervention.'  State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494, 516 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1093, 115 S.Ct. 757, 130 L.Ed.2d 656 (1995) (quoting State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948, 109 S.Ct. 380, 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988)). Morrow complains of the following remarks: But you have to keep in mind, because you heard evidence today, ladies and gentlemen, that he had just gotten out of jail January of '94, this is April of '94. And look at his history, ladies and gentlemen. You can take those back to the jury room to look at them. What do you think is going through his mind? He knows where he's going to go if he gets caught because he's been there, he's been there and done that. Keep that in mind, ladies and gentlemen. That's also a statutory aggravating circumstance you can consider in this case, that he knew that he couldn't get caught Defense: Objection, misstates the law, that's not Court: Overruled. Morrow now contends that these statements were not supported by the evidence. However, this objection was not preserved, as it was never raised at trial. Morrow also complains that the prosecutor told the jury to read the presentence investigation report and find out what kind of guy [Morrow] really is. Morrow argues that the report was impermissible hearsay. Morrow, however, did not make a hearsay objection at trial. Morrow also challenges the following remarks: Now, I don't know what else you need to make this decision. It's a tough decision but society has to make tough decisions, presidents have to make tough decisions, legislators have to make tough decisions; everybody has to make tough decisions and you're going to have to make it for our community, ladies and gentlemen. Like I indicated to you- Defense: Objection, improper evidence. Court: Overruled. Morrow contends that these remarks are inflammatory and unsupported by the evidence. These objections are not preserved for review because Morrow's objection of improper evidence is not specific enough to raise them. Objections must be specific to be preserved for appellate review. State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Mo. banc 1995). Because we find no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice arising from the state's closing arguments, we do not review for plain error. See Rule 30.20. Point denied.