Opinion ID: 2460227
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judge to Decide Punishment

Text: Johnston claims that the prosecutor sought to lessen the jurors' sense of responsibility by telling them they could let the judge decide the punishment. Johnston's counsel did not object. The prosecutor said: There is also another verdict form that permits you to set the punishment at life in prison, and Mr. Wolfrum will get up here in a few minutes and I will most certainly guarantee you that is what he will ask for. And there is a third verdict form which involves you may let the court decide the punishment. [sic] That is an option left open to the jury. And there is a fourth verdict form.... The State may explain the instructions to the jury, provided the State does not misstate the law. State v. Roberts, 709 S.W.2d 857, 869 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 946, 107 S.Ct. 427, 93 L.Ed.2d 378 (1986). The State did not misstate the law here. On review of the motion court's holding, we conclude that the motion court did not clearly err in overruling Johnston's Rule 29.15 motion.