Court Opinion

ID: 9755598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:43:50.680413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:09.404444
License: Public Domain

DUANE BENTON, Judge.
Bruce D. Thompson was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and armed criminal action. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 years, respectively. He argues that the circuit court erred in limiting his opening statement to evidence to be produced in his case-in-chief, excluding evidence to be elicited by cross-examining State witnesses. After opinion by the Court of Appeals, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. Reversed and remanded.
I.
The State moved in limine to limit defendant’s opening statement to the evidence in his case-in-chief. The defense objected, asserting its intent to elicit exculpatory evidence from State witnesses. Defense counsel argued that because she would not present such evidence in her case-in-chief, she could not give a meaningful opening statement. The court sustained the State’s motion.
After the State’s opening statement, the defense again requested to make an opening statement incorporating the matters discussed in the motion in limine. The trial court denied the request. Defense counsel then delivered this opening statement:
There’s much more; there’s much more. We ask you to wait, listen, and then decide. The evidence will not add up, so you will not be able to find Bruce Thompson guilty of this offense because he is not.
The state objected, and the court sustained the objection.
II.
The primary purpose of an opening statement is to inform the judge and jury of the general nature of the case, so they may appreciate the significance of the evidence as it is presented. Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 415, 54 S.Ct. 487, 489, 78 L.Ed. 882, 885 (1934); Hays v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 304 S.W.2d 800, 804 (Mo.1957). Opening statements are limited to factual statements that can be proved. State v. Feger, 340 S.W.2d 716, 724 (Mo.1960); State v. Fleming, 523 S.W.2d 849, 853 (Mo.App.1975). Thus, argument is improper. State v. Arrington, 375 S.W.2d 186, 190 (Mo.1964); State v. Hurst, 612 S.W.2d 846, 853 (Mo. App.1981); State v. Ivory, 609 S.W.2d 217, 222 (Mo.App.1980).
Cross-examination may establish facts. State witnesses may know facts that support the defense, because the State, like any party, must take its witnesses as it finds them. Rowe v. Farmers Ins. Co., 699 S.W.2d 423, 424-25 (Mo. banc 1985). Generally, State witnesses may be cross-examined on any and all matters in the case, including matters not within the scope of direct examination. State v. Gardner, 8 S.W.3d 66, 71 (Mo. banc 1999). Even cross-examination limited to prior inconsistent statements may yield substantive evidence. See Section 491.074 RSMo 1994. Thus, through cross-examination alone, the defense can establish facts, a defense, or theory of the case.
*395An absolute ban on reference to all cross-examination testimony denies the defendant — who does not call witnesses — the right to an opening statement. See Rule 27.02(f); section 546.070(2) RSMo 1994. Such a ban reaches beyond the prohibition of argument in opening statements. Cases espousing this absolute ban are hereby overruled. State v. Flaaen, 863 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Mo.App.1993); State v. Nelson, 831 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo.App.1992); State v. Gibson, 684 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Mo.App. 1984); State v. Bibbs, 634 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Mo.App.1982). See also State v. Hamilton, 740 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Mo.App.1987) (dicta not to be followed: “Although where a defendant will not testify and has no other evidence or testimony there may be no basis for an opening statement on his part, the ruling does not prevent the statement of what he expects to prove as a defense if he will have evidence.”).
The scope of opening statements is within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Brooks, 618 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Mo. banc 1981). Review is only for abuse of discretion. State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 680 (Mo. banc 1998). The trial court here erred in denying defense counsel the opportunity to make an opening statement that referred to cross-examination testimony.
III.
 Error alone does not warrant reversal. Hall, 982 S.W.2d at 680. Reversal requires prejudicial error. Id.
Here, defense counsel wanted to reference the following facts she intended to elicit on cross-examination:
1.Shortly after the murder, Thompson was acting normal, not disturbed, and had no scratches, bruises, swelling, blood or bandages (testimony from Thompson’s sister).
2. The police searched Thompson’s car for forensic evidence linking him to the murder but did not find any (testimony from crime scene technicians).
3. Fingerprints found by the police near the crime scene did not match Thompson’s (testimony from crime scene technicians).
4. The police were unable to match the bloody shoeprints found at the crime scene with the shoes Thompson was wearing at the time he turned himself in (testimony from criminalist).
This was a circumstantial evidence case, as the State admitted from start to finish. The trial lasted three days, with testimony from 15 witnesses. This was the kind of case where an effective opening can make a difference. Demonstrating the importance of an opening statement, the State painted an elaborate picture of its case by delivering a 25-page opening statement detailing the facts to be elicited from State witnesses. The jury had a context for the State’s evidence as it was offered.
In contrast, defense counsel was unable to outline the facts supporting her theory of the case. Her four-line opening statement could not reference any exculpatory facts, nor provide a context as they were presented. During trial, jurors had only one framework to view the evidence — the State’s. Not until closing argument did jurors learn the importance of the facts elicited on cross-examination.
Most importantly, the judge sustained an objection to defense counsel’s opening statement. Thus, the judge not only precluded the defense from referencing exculpatory facts, but in this case, effectively denied defense any opening statement. See State v. Barton, 936 S.W.2d 781, 788 (Mo. banc 1996). There is a reasonable probability that, in the absence of the abuse of discretion, the verdict would have *396been different. Therefore, Thompson was prejudiced by the trial court’s abuse of discretion.
IV.
This Court need not address Thompson’s points attacking the sufficiency of the evidence and the State’s closing argument. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case remanded.
WHITE, HOLSTEIN, WOLFF, and PRICE, JJ., and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Sp. J., concur.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, Jr., C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part in separate opinion filed.
LAURA DENVIR STITH, J., not participating.