Court Opinion

ID: 9799594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 07:22:22.952625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:01.516166
License: Public Domain

DANIEL E. SCOTT, J.
Although I think Appellant is arguing § 491.725 only by analogy, the outcome is the same because “this was a matter for the trial court’s exercise of discretion in controlling the proceeding in his courtroom.” State v. Johnson, 485 S.W.2d 106, 117 (Mo.1972). We review for abuse of that discretion, id., and would reverse only if the trial court acted so arbitrarily, unreasonably, and illogically “as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration,” State v. Sanders, 353 S.W.3d 721, 722 (Mo.App.2011), which plainly was not the case. I concur.