Opinion ID: 1615498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Defendant was Prejudiced

Text: There remains the issue of prejudice in this case. Where a trial court has abused its discretion with respect to improper closing arguments, reversal is warranted only upon showing that the defendant was prejudiced. State v. Williams, 24 S.W.3d 101, 124 (Mo.App.2000). Stated otherwise, even if the prosecution's argument was improper, reversal is appropriate only if it is established that the comment of which Appellant complains had a `decisive effect on the jury's determination.' State v. Armentrout, 8 S.W.3d 99, 111-12 (Mo. banc 1999) (quoting State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 683 (Mo. banc 1998)). The State correctly states that overwhelming evidence of guilt may lead an appellate court to find that a defendant was not prejudiced by trial court error. State v. Beal, 966 S.W.2d 9, 14 (Mo.App. 1997). In this case, that argument ignores that Banks' principal defense was the credibility and unreliability of the witnesses. The State was required to seek a writ to produce at least two of its witnesses. The State had to impeach several of its own witnesses with prior statements. Several witnesses testified that they and others at the scene were very drunk or high on drugs. The State was forced to call a police officer to testify that he did not believe any of the witnesses to be drunk or under the influence of drugs at the time of their questioning on the day of the shooting. In addition, there were numerous other inconsistencies in the statements or trial testimony of the witnesses. The State spent some time in its opening argument justifying these inconsistencies and suggesting that the witnesses were afraid of Banks (because, argued the State, He kills snitches). A juror was excused even before the final argument because he expressed fear of retaliation based on testimony during the trial. There was evidence that the house where the shooting occurred was a crack house and also a house of prostitution. Given these circumstances, the credibility and reliability of the witnesses and their ability to accurately perceive and remember the events of that day were substantial issues. Although in addressing the sufficiency of the evidence this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, State v. Kusgen, 178 S.W.3d 595, 596 (Mo.App.2005), it does not do so when evaluating the potential prejudice of trial error, see State v. Leisure, 796 S.W.2d 875, 880 (Mo. banc 1990) (Error, which in a close case might call for reversal, may be disregarded as harmless when the evidence of guilt is strong.). In sum, the State's own evidence showed that the location of the crime and the witnesses it was forced to rely upon were unsavory at best. The State said this world is hell, referring to the scene and the witnesses. To strengthen the state's witnesses, the prosecutor directly called Banks the chief of this world of hell: the devil himself. In so doing, the State failed to distinguish proper and legitimate argument from personal and inflammatory attack. The trial court should have promptly and firmly rebuked counsel in front of the jury. The court's failure to do so prejudiced Banks.