claim of instructional error in Missouri

2021“To preserve a claim of instructional error, a specific objection must be made stating ‘distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.’ The same objection must also be raised in the motion for a new trial.” Carroll v. Kelsey, 234 S.W.3d 559, 562 (Mo. App. 2007) (quoting Rule 70.03).

2019“To preserve a claim of instructional error, a specific objection must be made stating ‘distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.’ The same objection must also be raised in the motion for a new trial.” Carroll v. Kelsey, 234 S.W.3d 559, 562 (Mo. App. 2007) (quoting Rule 70.03).

2025“In order for an appellate court to reverse a criminal case based on a claim of instructional error, a defendant must demonstrate the trial court committed instructional error and that the error was so prejudicial that it deprived him of a fair trial.” Fowler, 690 S.W.3d at 210 (citing State v. Sanders, 522 S.W.3d 212, 215 (Mo. banc 2017)). “[A]n appellate court will affirm the trial court’s refusal to give a proffered instruction ‘if the trial court was correct for any reason.’” Id. (quoting Sanders, 522 S.W.3d at 215 ).

2025“In order for an appellate court to reverse a criminal case based on a claim of instructional error, a defendant must demonstrate the trial court committed instructional error and that the error was so prejudicial that it deprived him of a fair trial.” Fowler, 690 S.W.3d at 210 (citing State v. Sanders, 522 S.W.3d 212, 215 (Mo. banc 2017)). “[A]n appellate court will affirm the trial court’s refusal to give a proffered instruction ‘if the trial court was correct for any reason.’” Id. (quoting Sanders, 522 S.W.3d at 215 ).

2025A claim of instructional error at trial requires proof of the instruction’s “potential for confusing or misleading the jury.” State v. Dismang, 151 S.W.3d 155, 164 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004).

2010“When used in connection with assessing erroneous jury instructions, ‘prejudice’ is the potential for confusing or misleading the jury.” State v. Dismang, 151 S.W.3d 155, 164 (Mo.App.2004) (quoting State v. Sours, 946 S.W.2d 747, 750 (Mo.App.1997)).

2025See, e.g., State v. Cummings, 686 S.W.3d 709 , 717 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (“Cummings cannot transform his evidentiary claim into a claim of instructional error.”); State v. Hughes, 84 S.W.3d 176, 180 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (declining to reframe the appellant’s instructional challenge on appeal from one directed at the sufficiency of the evidence to one directed at the form of the instruction).

2024Mar. 19, 2024) (“Cummings cannot transform his evidentiary claim into a claim of instructional error.”); State v. Hughes, 84 S.W.3d 176, 180 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (declining to reframe the appellant’s instructional challenge on appeal from one directed at the sufficiency of the evidence to one directed at the form of the instruction).

2025“It is not proper for the appellate court to speculate as to the point being raised by the appellant and the supporting legal justification and circumstances.” Boyd v. Boyd, 134 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004).

2024“It is not proper for the appellate court to speculate as to the point being raised by the appellant and the supporting legal justification and circumstances.” Boyd v. Boyd, 134 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004).

2025See State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017) ("A defendant invites error and waives appellate review of a claim of instructional error when the defendant jointly proffers an erroneous instruction.").

2025“A defendant invites error and waives appellate review of a claim of instructional error when the defendant jointly proffers an erroneous instruction.” State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017).

2024Louis Cold Drawn, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 775, 780 (Mo.App. 2014)). “[A] point on appeal must be based upon the theory voiced in the objection at trial, and an appellant cannot expand or change on appeal the objection as made.” Id. “[A] simple objection on the basis that the instruction fails to state the applicable law or fails to contain all of the necessary elements of a cause of action, standing alone, is considered a general objection, preserving nothing for appellate review.” Gurley v. Montgomery First Nat.

2024Louis Cold Drawn, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 775, 780 (Mo.App. 2014)). “[A] point on appeal must be based upon the theory voiced in the objection at trial, and an appellant cannot expand or change on appeal the objection as made.” Id. “[A] simple objection on the basis that the instruction fails to state the applicable law or fails to contain all of the necessary elements of a cause of action, standing alone, is considered a general objection, preserving nothing for appellate review.” Gurley v. Montgomery First Nat.

2015See State v. Derenzy, 89 S.W.3d 472, 475 (Mo. banc 2002).

2015See State v. Derenzy, 89 S.W.3d 472, 475 (Mo. banc 2002).

2014State v. Mangum, 390 S.W.3d 853, 860 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).

2014State v. Mangum, 390 S.W.3d 853, 860 (Mo.App.E.D.2013).

2013State v. Richie, 376 S.W.3d 58, 64 (Mo.App.2012).

2013State v. Richie, 376 S.W.3d 58, 64 (Mo.App.

2010Nevertheless, remembering that “[o]n a claim of instructional error, ‘an appellate court will reverse only if there is error in submitting an instruction and prejudice to the defendant,’ ” State v. Taylor, 134 S.W.3d 21, 25 (Mo. banc 2004) (quoting State v. Taylor, 944 S.W.2d 925, 936 (Mo. banc 1997)), we now consider whether Appellant was prejudiced by the submission of these erroneous jury instructions.

2004State v. Taylor, 134 S.W.3d 21, 25 (Mo. banc 2004).

2000The party offering the erroneous instruction has the burden of showing that the erroneous instruction “created no substantial potential for prejudicial effect.” Porta-Fab Corp. v. Young Sales Corp., 943 S.W.2d 686, 689-90 (Mo.App.1997).

1999Porta-Fab Corp. v. Young Sales Corp., 943 S.W.2d 686, 689-90 (Mo.App.1997).

2021Consequently, a “defendant invites error and waives appellate review of a claim of instructional error when the defendant jointly proffers an erroneous instruction.” Id.

2017State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Mo. banc 2012).

2019Powderly v. S. Co. Anesthesia Assocs., Ltd., 245 S.W.3d 267, 276 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008).

2018Id.

2019“Timely objections to an instruction are required as a condition precedent to appellate review in order to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any mistakes immediately and inexpensively without risking the delay and expense of an appeal and a retrial.” Ross-Paige v. Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department, 492 S.W.3d 164, 170 (Mo. banc 2016).

2018"Timely objections to an instruction are required as a condition precedent to appellate review in order to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any mistakes immediately and inexpensively without risking the delay and expense of an appeal and a retrial." Ross-Paige v. Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department , 492 S.W.3d 164 , 170 (Mo. banc 2016).

2010Zink, 181 S.W.3d at 74 .

2010State v. Zink, 181 S.W.3d 66, 74 (Mo. banc 2005).

2025The Supreme Court of Missouri in State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390 , 395 n.3 (Mo. banc 2014), noted that section 556.046 was a procedural statute. 4 Standard of Review “The issue of whether a trial court erroneously rejected a proffered lesser[-]included offense instruction is subject to de novo review.” State v. Cole, 705 S.W.3d 737 , 739 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (citing State v. Brown, 524 S.W.3d 44, 47 (Mo. banc 2017)). “[T]o reverse a criminal case based on a claim of instructional error, a defendant must demonstrate the trial court committed instructional error and that the error was so prejud

2023See Clark, 731 S.W.2d at 471 (internal citation omitted) (noting an affirmative converse must be supported by independent evidence in the record); see also Hayes, 313 S.W.3d at 650 (internal quotation omitted) (noting any issue submitted to the jury in an instruction must be supported by substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably find such issue).

2023It is sufficient for appellate review that an objection to a criminal instruction is timely made in the circuit court, raised in a motion for new trial, and states “distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.” Rule 28.03; see also State v. Borst, 643 S.W.3d 586 , 591 (Mo. App. 2022) as . . . (c) where the defendant may have committed several separate offenses against the same victim at the same general location within a short space of time.” And MAI-CR 4th 404.02, Note 7 (Verdict Unanimity in Multiple Acts Cases) explains “[a] ‘multiple acts’ case arises when evidence i

2023See Clark, 731 S.W.2d at 471 (internal citation omitted) (noting an affirmative converse must be supported by independent evidence in the record); see also Hayes, 313 S.W.3d at 650 (internal quotation omitted) (noting any issue submitted to the jury in an instruction must be supported by substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably find such issue).

2022The Missouri Supreme Court has explained that “[o]ur rules for preservation of error for review are applied, not to enable the court to avoid the task of review, nor to make preservation of error difficult for the appellant, but, to enable the court – the trial court first, then the appellate court – to define the precise claim made by the defendant.” State v. Amick, 462 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Mo. 2015) (quoting State v. Pointer, 887 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994)).

2022The Missouri Supreme Court has explained that “[o]ur rules for preservation of error for review are applied, not to enable the court to avoid the task of review, nor to make preservation of error difficult for the appellant, but, to enable the court – the trial court first, then the appellate court – to define the precise claim made by the defendant.” State v. Amick, 462 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Mo. 2015) (quoting State v. Pointer, 887 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994)).

2020Rule 70.03; State v. Weaver, 475 S.W.3d 695, 697 (Mo App. E.D. 2015).

2019"Compliance with Rule 84.04 is mandatory." Terpstra v. State, 565 S.W.3d 229, 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). "'A party's failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review . . . .'" Shelter Mut.

2019See Spence, 547 S.W.3d at 779 n.12. 12 the grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. [Appellant's Brief, p. 28] BNSF's brief never raises or addresses the standard of review applicable to claims of instructional error.

2017See, e.g., Westerman v. Shogren, 392 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (finding that defendant waived his objection to the inclusion of future damages in the jury instruction by failing to object to the instruction as given); Dierker Assocs., D.C., P.C. v. Gillis, 859 S.W.2d 737, 745 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (finding no prejudicial instructional-error when a jury instruction including the elective phrase “and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future” was given to the jury).

2017See, e.g., Westerman v. Shogren, 392 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (finding that defendant waived his objection to the inclusion of future damages in the jury instruction by failing to object to the instruction as given); Dierker Assocs., D.C., P.C. v. Gillis, 859 S.W.2d 737, 745 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (finding no prejudicial instructional-error when a jury instruction including the elective phrase “and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future” was given to the jury).