Opinion ID: 2105313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Police Scanner at the Safe House

Text: Cox's cross-examination included this exchange: DEFENSE COUNSEL: Was there a scanner available at the safe house? COX: I believe so, yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: And you were able to hear some of the investigation that was going on? COX: Yes. Defense counsel then summarized in closing argument, She listens to a scanner that is there and is able to hear of the investigation and arrest of [defendant]. In rebuttal, the State argued, There was no evidence that Jessica Cox was at the safe house listening to a scanner about the details of the investigation. Defense objected, but was overruled. The State concedes error. Review, however, is not for error, but for prejudicial error. State v.Walls, 744 S.W.2d 791, 797-98 (Mo. banc), cert. denied 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 181, 102 L.Ed.2d 150 (1988). First, defense counsel misstated the evidence as well. Cox was able to hear only some of the investigation. Second, defendant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's misstatement of the evidence. Before going to the safe house, Cox told the same basic story as at trial about defendant, the crimes, the crime scene, and other related scenes. Defendant frames the misstatement of evidence as a constitutional violation (due process, confrontation clause, right to present a defense, right to access justice through the courts of Missouri, right to a reliable verdict and sentencing, cruel and unusual punishment). Under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), this Court has the duty to decide whether the prosecutor's comments resulted in error that was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kilgore, 771 S.W.2d 57, 62 (Mo. banc 1989); State v. Dexter, 954 S.W.2d 332, 340 n. 1 (Mo. banc 1997). This Court finds that the comments were harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.