Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
107 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clemmonsgreen2 sentences2023“This is because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” Id. at 907-08 . 5 2018Without an objection, the circuit court's options "are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention." State v. Clemmons , 753 S.W.2d 901 , 907-08 (Mo. banc 1988). | 54 | 62 |
State v. Silveygreen2 sentences2022“Such situations rarely merit plain error review because in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” State v. Sanchez, 186 S.W.3d 260, 265 (Mo. banc 2006), citing State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 670 (Mo. banc 1995). 2006We rarely grant relief on the assertion of plain error regarding closing arguments because “in the absence of objection and request for relief the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with [the closing argument] and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” Deck, 994 S.W.2d at 544 quoting State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 670 (Mo.banc 1995). | 11 | 25 |
State v. Bogardgreen2 sentences1999Appellate courts of this state “ ‘rarely grant relief on assertions of plain error as to closing argument ... because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.’ ” State v. Bogard, 836 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Mo.App.1992) (quoting State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo.banc 1988)). 1998Appellate courts “ ‘rarely grant relief on assertions of plain error as to closing argument ... because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.’ ” State v. Bogard, 836 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Mo.App.1992) (quoting State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo.banc 1988)). | 8 | 8 |
State v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2023“Courts especially hesitate to find plain error in the context of closing argument because the decision to object is often a matter of trial strategy, and in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” Reese, 632 S.W.3d at 378 (quoting Edwards, 116 S.W.3d at 536 ). 2023“Courts especially hesitate to find plain error in the context of closing argument because the decision to object is often a matter of trial strategy[.]” Reese, 632 S.W.3d at 378 (quoting Edwards, 116 S.W.3d at 536 ). “[I]n the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” Id. | 7 | 9 |
State v. Cobbgreen2 sentences2002In fact, “plain error relief should be rarely granted as to closing argument, ‘for trial strategy looms as an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explanation.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994)). 1999Moreover, plain error review as to alleged objectionable closing argument should, as a practical matter, be denied in that “ ‘trial strategy looms as an important consideration [in deciding whether to object] and such assertions are generally denied without explanation.’ ” State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 329 (Mo. banc 1996) (quoting State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994)). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Woodgreen2 sentences1999Plain error review should rarely be grant *590 ed as to closing argument, “ ‘for trial strategy looms as an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explanation.’ ” State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994) (quoting State v. Wood, 719 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 1986)); see also Wyman, 945 S.W.2d at 77 . 1998Trial strategy looms as an important consideration in any trial; accordingly, assertions of plain error concerning matters contained in closing argument are “generally denied without explication.” State v. Wood, 719 S.W.2d 756, 759 [5] (Mo.banc 1986). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Boydgreen2 sentences2019The overwhelming evidence against Defendant shows no manifest injustice resulted and the trial court did not plainly err when it failed to, sua sponte, order a mistrial in this case. 5 As to a closing argument, plain error relief is "rarely" granted and "is generally denied without explanation." State v. Wilson, 343 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (quoting State v. Garner, 14 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999)). "[I]n the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by suc 2007“Relief should rarely be granted in matters such as this ‘because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation, and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.’” State v. Collins, 150 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Mo.App.2004) (quoting State v. Boyd, 954 S.W.2d 602, 609 (Mo.App.1997)). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Mayesgreen2 sentences2025This precept holds particularly true in the context of closing arguments where, “[i]n the absence of an objection and request for relief, a trial court’s uninvited interference with summation may itself constitute error.” State v. Lloyd, 205 S.W.3d 893, 908 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006); see also State v. Mayes, 63 S.W.3d 615, 632 (Mo. banc 2001) (determining “the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention” in the absence of objection and request for relief) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 2023In the context of closing argument, “the decision to object is often a matter of trial strategy and in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” State v. Mayes, 63 S.W.3d 615, 632 (Mo. banc 2001) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2007State v. Wright, 934 S.W.2d 575, 584-85 (Mo.App.1996). 2002See also State v. Wright, 934 S.W.2d 575, 584-85 (Mo.App.1996). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Wymangreen2 sentences1999Plain error review should rarely be grant *590 ed as to closing argument, “ ‘for trial strategy looms as an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explanation.’ ” State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994) (quoting State v. Wood, 719 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 1986)); see also Wyman, 945 S.W.2d at 77 . 1998“Relief should rarely be granted on assertions of plain error as to closing argument because, ‘in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.’” State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 670 (Mo. banc 1995) (quoting State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988)); State v. Wyman, 945 S.W.2d 74, 77 (Mo.App.1997). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Cliffordgreen2 sentences1996In State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988), the Supreme Court said, “A court should rarely grant relief on assertions of plain error as to closing argument[.] This is because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” In State v. Clifford, 815 S.W.2d 3, 8 (Mo.App.1991), this court also said, “Errors committed during closing argument do not justify relief under the 1995This is because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with sum *646 mation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” “Errors committed during closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error standard unless they are determined to have had a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Clifford, 815 S.W.2d 3, 8 (Mo.App.1991). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Garnergreen2 sentences2023“Plain error relief as to closing argument should rarely be granted and is generally denied without explanation.” State v. Garner, 14 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Mo.App. 1999). 2019The overwhelming evidence against Defendant shows no manifest injustice resulted and the trial court did not plainly err when it failed to, sua sponte, order a mistrial in this case. 5 As to a closing argument, plain error relief is "rarely" granted and "is generally denied without explanation." State v. Wilson, 343 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (quoting State v. Garner, 14 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999)). "[I]n the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by suc | 2 | 2 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2019The overwhelming evidence against Defendant shows no manifest injustice resulted and the trial court did not plainly err when it failed to, sua sponte, order a mistrial in this case. 5 As to a closing argument, plain error relief is "rarely" granted and "is generally denied without explanation." State v. Wilson, 343 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (quoting State v. Garner, 14 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999)). "[I]n the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by suc 2013“Trial judges are not expected to assist counsel in trying cases, and trial judges should act sua sponte only in exceptional circumstances.” State v. Thompson, 390 S.W.3d 171, 176 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Crawfordgreen2 sentences2007State v. Crawford, 904 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Mo.App. 2005State v. Crawford, 904 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kindergreen2 sentences1999Moreover, plain error review as to alleged objectionable closing argument should, as a practical matter, be denied in that “ ‘trial strategy looms as an important consideration [in deciding whether to object] and such assertions are generally denied without explanation.’ ” State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 329 (Mo. banc 1996) (quoting State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994)). 1998Another reason for rarely granting plain error relief for matters dealing with closing argument is because “trial strategy looms as an important consideration [in deciding whether to object] and such assertions are generally denied without explanation.” State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 329 (Mo. banc 1996) (quoting State v. Wood, 719 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 1986)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Harpergreen2 sentences1997“ReEef should rarely be granted on assertion of plain error as to closing argument because ‘in the absence of an objection and a request for reEef, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.’ ” State v. Harper, 855 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Mo.App.1993), quoting State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988). 1994Furthermore, “[rjelief should rarely be granted on assertion of plain error as to closing argument because ‘in the absence of an objection and a request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.’ ” State v. Harper, 855 S.W.2d 474, 479 (Mo.App.1993) (quoting State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2019Id. 10 Relief on plain error claims involving closing argument is rarely granted “because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” State v. White, 247 S.W.3d 557, 563 (Mo.App. 2007). 2015“Appellate courts of this state rarely grant relief on assertions of plain error as to closing argument ... because, in the absence of an objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2019The overwhelming evidence against Defendant shows no manifest injustice resulted and the trial court did not plainly err when it failed to, sua sponte, order a mistrial in this case. 5 As to a closing argument, plain error relief is "rarely" granted and "is generally denied without explanation." State v. Wilson, 343 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (quoting State v. Garner, 14 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999)). "[I]n the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by suc 2007“Relief should rarely be granted in matters such as this ‘because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation, and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.’” State v. Collins, 150 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Mo.App.2004) (quoting State v. Boyd, 954 S.W.2d 602, 609 (Mo.App.1997)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2025A “defendant’s failure to object to an improper argument is often strategic, and uninvited intervention may emphasize the matter in a way the defendant chose not to.” State v. Carter, 415 S.W.3d 685, 691 (Mo. banc 2013). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lloydgreen1 sentence2025This precept holds particularly true in the context of closing arguments where, “[i]n the absence of an objection and request for relief, a trial court’s uninvited interference with summation may itself constitute error.” State v. Lloyd, 205 S.W.3d 893, 908 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006); see also State v. Mayes, 63 S.W.3d 615, 632 (Mo. banc 2001) (determining “the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention” in the absence of objection and request for relief) (internal quotations and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallgreen1 sentence2023Thus, “to establish that the [trial] court committed plain error during closing arguments, [a defendant] must make a sound, substantial showing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if [this Court fails to] grant relief.” Hall, 319 S.W.3d at 523 (internal quotation omitted) (alterations in original). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Radleygreen1 sentence2022We are cognizant that “a holding that would require the trial judge to interrupt counsel would present myriad problems.” Brooks, 158 S.W.3d at 853 , citing State v. Radley, 904 S.W.2d 520, 524 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995). 4 Point I In his first point on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court plainly erred in failing to intervene sua sponte and issue a curative instruction or declare a mistrial in response to the State making an improper “future dangerousness” argument, in which the State implied that Appellant would harm both Victim and future children if acquitted and that the jury would be respon | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sanchezgreen1 sentence2022“Such situations rarely merit plain error review because in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” State v. Sanchez, 186 S.W.3d 260, 265 (Mo. banc 2006), citing State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 670 (Mo. banc 1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2019The overwhelming evidence against Defendant shows no manifest injustice resulted and the trial court did not plainly err when it failed to, sua sponte, order a mistrial in this case. 5 As to a closing argument, plain error relief is "rarely" granted and "is generally denied without explanation." State v. Wilson, 343 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (quoting State v. Garner, 14 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999)). "[I]n the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by suc | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thompsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Valentinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McMillinred | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Collinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robertsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Weichtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. O'HAVERgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Golattgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Antwinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Boswellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Storeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lawsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Crenshawgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Simmsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clemmons v. Missouri
green
2 sentences2003“Courts especially hesitate to find plain error in the context of closing argument because the decision to object is often a matter of trial strategy, [citation omitted], and ‘in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.’ ” Mayes, 63 S.W.3d at 632-33 , quoting, State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988). 2003"Courts especially hesitate to find plain error in the context of closing argument because the decision to object is often a matter of trial strategy, [citation omitted], and `in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.'" Mayes, 63 S.W.3d at 632-33 , quoting, State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988). | 30 | 1990–2003 |
Clemmons v. Missouri
green
2 sentences2003“Courts especially hesitate to find plain error in the context of closing argument because the decision to object is often a matter of trial strategy, [citation omitted], and ‘in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.’ ” Mayes, 63 S.W.3d at 632-33 , quoting, State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988). 2003"Courts especially hesitate to find plain error in the context of closing argument because the decision to object is often a matter of trial strategy, [citation omitted], and `in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.'" Mayes, 63 S.W.3d at 632-33 , quoting, State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988). | 28 | 1990–2003 |
State v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2015“Without an objection, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by' such intervention.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “ ‘A conviction will be reversed based on plain error in closing argument only when it is established that the argument had a decisive effect on the outcome of the trial and amounts to manifest injustice.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511, 536-37 (Mo. banc 2003)). *774 At the outset, it is not plain on the face of the record that the prosecutor misstated the evidenced Officer Pratt, 2015“Without an objection, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by' such intervention.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “ ‘A conviction will be reversed based on plain error in closing argument only when it is established that the argument had a decisive effect on the outcome of the trial and amounts to manifest injustice.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511, 536-37 (Mo. banc 2003)). *774 At the outset, it is not plain on the face of the record that the prosecutor misstated the evidenced Officer Pratt, | 4 | 2008–2015 |
State v. Hagan
green
2 sentences2006All references are to Missouri Court Rules 2006 unless otherwise indicated. . "[A] trial court's failure to sua sponte address improper statements made in closing argument rarely constitutes plain error requiring reversal, because without an objection or request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” Hagan, 113 S.W.3d at 267 . . 2006All references to Rules are to Missouri Court Rules 2006 unless otherwise specified. 4 . "[A] trial court’s failure to sua sponte address improper statements made in closing argument rarely constitutes plain error requiring reversal, because without an objection or request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” Hagan, 113 S.W.3d at 267 . 5 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Brooks
green
1 sentence2022We are cognizant that “a holding that would require the trial judge to interrupt counsel would present myriad problems.” Brooks, 158 S.W.3d at 853 , citing State v. Radley, 904 S.W.2d 520, 524 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995). 4 Point I In his first point on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court plainly erred in failing to intervene sua sponte and issue a curative instruction or declare a mistrial in response to the State making an improper “future dangerousness” argument, in which the State implied that Appellant would harm both Victim and future children if acquitted and that the jury would be respon | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. MacK
green
1 sentence2019Id. 10 Relief on plain error claims involving closing argument is rarely granted “because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” State v. White, 247 S.W.3d 557, 563 (Mo.App. 2007). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Cornelious green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Wallace green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Deck green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Middleton green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Metrix Warehouse, Inc. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. Hadley green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Greene green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Wilkerson green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.