Opinion ID: 2460227
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Names/Bad Character

Text: Johnston next complains that the prosecutor prejudicially described him as an animal and not a man, and that the prosecutor repeatedly called him macho man and referred to the violent world this guy operates in, all without objection. References to defendant's as animals or monsters do not form the basis for a reversal when the characterization is supported by evidence. State v. George, 921 S.W.2d 638, 644-45 (Mo. App.1996); State v. Munoz, 678 S.W.2d 834, 835-36 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Mayfield, 562 S.W.2d 404, 412 (Mo.App.1978). This is such a case. Further, when viewed in context, these statements described evidence of Johnston's historical penchant for the use of violence as a solution to disputes. This was a permissible restatement of the facts in evidence. The motion court did not err in concluding that these statements did not have decisive effect on the trial and in overruling the Rule 29.15 motion on this point.