State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 10× by 10 distinct cases, 2010–2019 · 2 courts→ Stable · …for evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated. at p. 837 ✓ Topic ↗
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2009–2013 · 2 courts · …clearly against the logic of the circumstances. at p. 837 ✓
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2010–2013 · …the standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion. at p. 837 ✓
80 citation events (80 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: M.T.M. and P.M., et al., Respondents, v. St. Louis City Circuit Court, et al., Appellants. (moctapp, 2025-07-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) M.T.M. and P.M., et al., Respondents, v. St. Louis City Circuit Court, et al., Appellants.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
“For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” Mitchell v. Kardesch, 313 S.W.3d 667, 675 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. LOUIS ANTHONY MEALER
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
“The trial court has broad discretion in choosing to admit evidence[,] and we will not disturb this discretion unless it is against the logic of the circumstances and so unreasonable as to show a lack of careful consideration.” Id. (citing State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008)). “‘For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.’” Id. (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)). “‘Trial court error is not prejudicial unless there is a reasonable probability that the trial court’s error affected the outcome of the trial.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI v. JESSE WARREN DEVORE
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
We review the trial court's admission of evidence for abuse of discretion and will reverse only when the decision is "clearly against the logic of the circumstances." State v. Taylor, 298 S.W.3d 482, 491 (Mo. banc 2009) (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Greg Halderman v. City of Sturgeon, Missouri and Tyler Patterson
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
The circuit court has “‘broad leeway in choosing to admit evidence; therefore, an exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances,’” State v. Primm, 347 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Mo. 2011) (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. 2009)), or “‘is so unreasonable and arbitrary that it shocks the sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful, deliberate consideration.’” Shallow v. Followell, 554 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Mo. 2018) (quoting Lozano v. BNSF Ry.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vaughn v. Stange
E.D. Mo. · 2021 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals noted that “[i]f a witness claims not to remember if a prior statement was or was not made, a proper foundation has been laid to admit the prior inconsistent statement.” Id. at p. 16 (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Mo. 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Jamel Jones
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
“To admit a prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence, the only necessary foundation is the inquiry as to whether the witness made the statement and whether the statement is true.” State v. Tolen, 295 S.W.3d 883, 889 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (citing State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Mo. banc 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. SAMUEL JERRY WHITAKER
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
“This standard gives the trial court broad leeway in choosing to admit evidence; therefore, an exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances.” Id. (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Virginia G. Eckelkamp v. Gary L. Eckelkamp
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Id. (citing State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Joseph Michael Wilson
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Standard of Review “The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.” State v. Primm, 347 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Mo. banc 2011) (citing State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)). “‘This standard gives the trial court broad leeway in choosing to admit evidence; therefore, an exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Reed, 282 S.W.3d at 837 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. BRANDY BROOKE SHADDOX
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
“The trial court has broad discretion in choosing to admit evidence[,] and we will not disturb this discretion unless it is against the logic of the circumstances and so unreasonable as to show a lack of careful consideration.” Id. (citing State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008)). “‘For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.’” Id. (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)). “‘Trial court error is not prejudicial unless there is a reasonable probability that the trial court’s error affected the outcome of the trial.…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vincent McFadden v. State of Missouri
Mo. · 2020 · confidence medium
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered as “evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JOHN HENRY RHODEN and DOROTHY JEAN WINFIELD, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. MISSOURI DELTA MEDICAL CENTER
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Ramon D. Boyd
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“The trial court has broad discretion in choosing to admit evidence[,] and we will not disturb this discretion unless it is against the logic of the circumstances and so unreasonable as to show a lack of careful consideration.” Id. (citing State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008)). “‘For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.’” Id. (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)). “‘Trial court error is not prejudicial unless there is a reasonable probability that the trial court’s error affected the outcome of the trial.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tracie L. Ostermeier v. Prime Properties Investments Inc.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“If reasonable persons may differ as to the propriety of an action taken by the trial court, then there was no abuse of discretion.” 11 State v. Quick, 334 S.W.3d 603, 609 (Mo. App. 2011) (citing State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) J.C.M., and individual, and J.C.M., Next Friend for W.C.M. and O.H.M., Plaintiff-Appellant/Respondent v. J.K.M., a/k/a/ J.K.E., D.A.N. and D.E.N., Defendants-Respondents/Cross-Appellants
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Dashaun Wooten
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo.banc 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael Ray Thomas v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“If reasonable persons may differ as to the propriety of an action taken by the trial court, then there was no abuse of discretion.” State v. Quick, 334 S.W.3d 603, 609 (Mo. App. 2011) (citing State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Derrick R. Patrick
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Prince
Mo. · 2017 · confidence medium
The circuit court’s “discretion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances.” Primm, 347 S.W.3d at 70 (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Scott
Mo. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Standard of Review “The admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion and disturbed only when the decision is ‘clearly against the logic of the circumstances.’ ” State v. Taylor, 298 S.W.3d 482, 491 (Mo. banc 2009) (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Missouri Soybean Merchandising Council v. AgBorn Genetics, LLC
Mo. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“If reasonable persons may differ as to the propriety of an action taken by the trial court, then there was no abuse of discretion.” State v. Quick, 334 S.W.3d 603, 609 (Mo. App. 2011) (citing State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)). , In sanctioning AgBorn, the trial court found there to be “innumerable issues that were, the subject of discovery.” The court found that AgBorn failed to produce responsive documents as ordered by the court and failed to provide adequate responses to the discovery.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hood
Mo. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“The admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion and disturbed only when the decision is ‘clearly against the logic of the circumstances.’ ” State v. Taylor, 298 S.W.3d 482, 491 (Mo. bane 2009) (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Naylor
Mo. · 2017 · confidence medium
The circuit court’s “discretion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances.” State v. Primm, 347 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) C.S. v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
But the fact that' the trial court erroneously admitted the statement does not mandate reversal.. “‘For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.’ ” S.F.M.D. v. F.D., 477 S.W.3d 626, 636 (Mo.App.W.D.2015) (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)). “‘Trial court error is not prejudicial unless, there is a reasonable probability that the trial court’s error affected the outcome of the trial.’” Id. (quoting State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Mo. banc 2006)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of: S.F.M.D., Juvenile Office v. F.D., (Father), and R.R. (Mother)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri, ex rel Jerry Scherschel v. City of Kansas City, Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” State v. Ise, 460 S.W.3d 448, 459 (Mo.App.W.D.2015) (quoting State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shanisha L. Saulsberry v. U.S. Toy Company, Inc.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“If reasonáble persons may differ as to the propriety of an action taken by the trial court, then there was no abuse of discretion.” State v. Quick, 334 S.W.3d 603, 609 (Mo.App.2011) (citing State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Bradley Ise
Mo. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. James L. Marquis
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jackson
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009) (citing State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Mark G. Jackson
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009) (citing State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Turner
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. George Turner
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ousley
Mo. · 2013 · confidence medium
Under this standard, the trial court’s decision will be overturned if it is “clearly against the logic of the circumstances.” See State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Taylor
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
The trial court’s “exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009). “[T]hat discretion is abused when a ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 223 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Crews
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Standard of Review “The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009) (citing State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hanna
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
“A jury may accept part of a witness’s testimony, but disbelieve other parts.” Id. 2 “The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Moore
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Walley v. La Plata Volunteer Fire Department
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
“For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Thompson
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Fulton
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Standard of Review “The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Primm
Mo. · 2011 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Winfrey
Mo. · 2011 · confidence medium
Because Mr. Winfrey was not allowed initially to ask Mr. Lewis if Mr. Lewis admitted to Nick Reynolds that he was the person who killed the victim at Storage USA and determine whether Mr. Lewis would admit making the statement, there was no attempt by Mr. Winfrey to lay a foundation to admit Mr. Reynolds’s testimony to show Mr. Lewis’s pri- or inconsistent statement, see section 491.074, RSMo 2000; State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Mo. banc 2009); State v. Granbeny, 491 S.W.2d 528, 530-31 (Mo. banc 1973), or his declaration against penal interest, see State v. Davidson, 982 S.W.2d 238, 2…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ridenour
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
A clear abuse of discretion occurs only when the decision is “ ‘clearly against the logic of the circumstances.’ ” State v. Reed,, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009) (quoting State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Quick
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ware
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sutton
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
“The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Steele (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Standard of Review “The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009) (citing State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mitchell v. Kardesch
Mo. · 2010 · confidence medium
“For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Taylor
Mo. · 2009 · confidence medium
The admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion and disturbed only when the decision is “clearly against the logic of the circumstances.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Jessica D. REED, Appellant
SC 88787.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
May 5, 2009.
282 S.W.3d 835
2009 Mo. LEXIS 56
2009 WL 1211285
Lawrence J. Fleming, Herzog Crebs LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant., Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Daniel N. McPherson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 58 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

A jury found Jessica Reed guilty of attempted manufacture of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), § 195.211, RSMo Supp. 2003. On appeal she argues that: (1) § 491.074, RSMo 2000, is unconstitutional as applied and violates the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); and (2) the trial court erred in the admission of hearsay testimony. [1]

This Court may address the evidentiary errors if they are dispositive rather than reach the constitutional claims. See Great Southern Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Wilburn, 887 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Mo. banc 1994) (citing Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Jefferson City, 862 S.W.2d 338, 340 n.5 (Mo. banc 1993)). This Court finds that the trial court allowed prejudicial hearsay testimony to be admitted improperly into evidence. [2] The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Facts

On September 11, 2006, Elizabeth Reed and her boyfriend, Adam McCauley, visited Jessica Reed at their father’s home in Foristell. Jessica Reed had been living with her father, Donald Reed, in the preceding weeks.

[*837] When McCauley and Elizabeth Reed left, they smelled ammonia as they passed a horse trailer parked on the property. McCauley called Donald Reed and, minutes later, observed two men leaving the horse trailer carrying a backpack and a pitcher containing a solid substance.

McCauley and Elizabeth Reed then saw Jessica Reed run into the woods with a trash bag. McCauley later helped police retrieve a trash bag that contained equipment commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine.

On July 19, 2007, a jury convicted Jessica Reed of attempted manufacture of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), § 195.211. On August 27, 2007, Reed was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to six years imprisonment.

I. Standard of Review

The standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion. State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. banc 2008). “This standard gives the trial court broad leeway in choosing to admit evidence; therefore, an exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed unless it ‘is clearly against the logic of the circumstances.’ ” Id. at 426-27 (citing State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Mo. banc 2006)). See also State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511, 532 (Mo. banc 2003). For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 223-24.

II. Out-of-Court Statements Introduced at Trial Over Objection of Defense Counsel

Reed’s claim is based on three instances where she alleges out-of-court statements were improperly admitted by the trial court over defense counsel’s hearsay objection. This Court determines that Reed’s claim, as it relates to the testimony of Officer Dull, has merit.

Hearsay is any out-of-court statement that is offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 146 (Mo. banc 2007). Once counsel objects on the basis of hearsay, the proponent has the burden to demonstrate that the statement fits into a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Gough v. General Box Co., 302 S.W.2d 884, 887 (Mo.1957). See also State v. Porras, 84 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Mo. App.2002) (citing State v. Post, 901 S.W.2d 231, 234 (Mo.App.1995)).

Reed correctly argues that the trial court improperly admitted McCauley’s out-of-court statement that Reed was making methamphetamine in the trailer. Over defense counsel’s objection, Officer Dull testified that McCauley told him he believed Reed was making methamphetamine in the horse trailer:

[The State]: And what, if anything, did Adam McCauley tell you?
[Defense Counsel]: Objection, hearsay.
[The State]: Judge, at this time I move that these would be — what I anticipate to be inconsistent statements, provide Section 491.074 as substantive evidence.
[The Court]: Prior inconsistent statements?
[The State]: Yes.
[Defense Counsel]: To what, impeach your own witness?
[The State]: Yes.
[Defense Counsel]: She hasn’t asked him to be declared a hostile witness and it’s her witness.
[The State]: My understanding of the law is that is not required.
[The Court]: I’m going to permit you to proceed over the Defendant’s objection.
[*838] [The State]: What did Mr. McCauley tell you?
[Officer Dull]: Mr. McCauley advised me that when he came home — or came to, I’m sorry, excuse me, came to the Reed’s address, he observed Jessica Reed in the trailer and observed her with another subject. And I asked him what he was — what he observed and which he stated that he believed—
[Defense Counsel]: — Your honor, may my objection be continuing to all this?
[The Court]: Yes.
[Defense Counsel]: Because we have just had Adam McCauley testify.
[The Court]: Yes, it may be a continuing objection.
[The State]: You can go ahead and complete what Mr. McCauley told you.
[Officer Dull]: He believed that Jessica Reed was making methamphetamine inside the trailer.

The trial court erred in admitting Officer Dull’s testimony because it was hearsay and there was no foundation to admit McCauley’s alleged statement as a prior inconsistent statement.

Section 491.074, RSMo 2000, states:

[A] prior inconsistent statement of any witness testifying in the trial of a criminal offense shall be received as substantive evidence, and the party offering the prior inconsistent statement may argue the truth of such statement.

To admit a prior inconsistent statement, “[t]he only necessary foundation is the inquiry as to whether the witness made the statement and whether the statement is true.” State v. Archuleta, 955 S.W.2d 12, 15 (Mo.App.1997). If a witness claims not to remember if a prior statement was or was not made, a proper foundation has been laid to admit the prior inconsistent statement. Id. In contrast, however, asking a witness nonspecific questions about a previous conversation does not lay a foundation to introduce a prior inconsistent statement. State v. Holmes, 845 S.W.2d 674, 676 (Mo.App.1993).

In its examination, the State failed to ask McCauley if he had previously stated that Reed was making methamphetamine in the trailer. A specific question is not necessary to lay a foundation, but the State failed even to ask a generally related question to lay a foundation. Id. The most closely related question posed to McCauley was whether Reed lived in the trailer, to which McCauley answered that he did not know if Reed was living in the trailer. Whether Reed was living in the trailer is too remote a question to lay a proper foundation to admit McCauley’s alleged statement that he believed she was making methamphetamine in the trailer. Officer Dull’s testimony was hearsay.

III. Reed was prejudiced by Officer Dull’s testimony

Reed is not entitled to relief because of the hearsay testimony unless she was prejudiced. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 223-24. Trial court error is prejudicial when there is a reasonable probability that it affected the outcome at trial. Id. Here, there is a reasonable probability that Officer Dull’s testimony affected the outcome of the trial because no other direct testimony showed that Reed was attempting to manufacture methamphetamine.

Conclusion

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

All concur.
1

. Although Reed's first point combined evi-dentiary error with constitutional error, Reed’s allegation of evidentiary error was raised in her brief and addressed by the State. Because Reed's contentions can be understood from the argument portion of her brief, this Court, in its discretion, reviews Reed's claims.

2

. The prosecutor sought the admission of the out-of-court statement as a prior inconsistent statement pursuant to § 491.074, but the witness never was questioned about the particular topic.