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

Heading: Point Four: Required Step in Sentencing Verdict Directors Omitted

Text: Tisius asserts the circuit court plainly erred in submitting instructions 11 and 17, the verdict mechanics instructions, because the instructions omitted language concerning the mitigating evidence. Tisius believes the instructions prevented the jury from returning a sentence of life if it believed the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances. For instructional error to constitute plain error, the defendant must demonstrate the trial court so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury that the error affected the jury's verdict. State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150, 154 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal citations omitted). If a defect is not readily apparent to alert counsel preparing to argue the case, there is very little likelihood that the jury will be confused or misled. State v. Green, 812 S.W.2d 779, 787 (Mo.App. W.D.1991) (quoting Hudson v. Carr, 668 S.W.2d 68, 72 (Mo. banc 1984)). This Court has resolved this issue previously. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d at 534-36; Storey, 40 S.W.3d at 919-14; Cole, 71 S.W.3d at 176. Tisius merely asks this Court to revisit its prior opinions and overturn those holdings. This Court declines to do so. The circuit court did not plainly err.