curative type instruction in Missouri

1988State v. Price, 541 S.W.2d 777, 779 (Mo.App.1976).

1983State v. Price, 541 S.W.2d 777, 779 (Mo.App.1976).

2025“When determining whether an improper closing argument constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring reversal, Missouri courts have considered ‘whether the trial court gave a cautionary instruction, whether the court gave a curative type instruction to disregard the improper comment, and the strength of the state’s case.’” Id. (quoting State v. Ware, 793 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990)).

2018And I ask you to look at the entire definition of deviate sexual intercourse, which goes on to talk about done with - to terrorize." When determining whether an improper closing argument constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring reversal, Missouri courts have considered "whether the trial court gave a cautionary instruction, whether the court gave a curative type instruction to disregard the improper comment, and the strengths of the state's case." State v. Ware , 793 S.W.2d 412 , 415 (Mo. App. 1990).

1990State v. Cannady, 660 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.App.1983) [16, 17], The court here gave neither a curative nor a cautionary instruction and the state’s case on deliberation was not so strong that we can say the comment did not affect the result.

1989“In determining whether an improper argument was so clearly injurious that a new trial should be required, this court considers whether the trial court gave a cautionary instruction, whether the trial court gave a curative type instruction to disregard the improper comment and the strength of the State’s case.” State v. Cannady, 660 S.W.2d 33, at 40 (Mo.App.1983).

2025“An abuse of discretion occurs when a defendant is prejudiced such that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome at trial would have been different if the error had not been committed.” State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 540 (Mo. banc 2014). “‘The State has wide latitude in closing arguments, but closing arguments must not go beyond the evidence presented; courts should exclude statements that misrepresent the evidence with changes in its diagnostic criteria.

1976In determining whether an improper comment was so clearly injurious that a new trial should be required, we consider three factors: whether the trial court gave a cautionary instruction, MAI-CR 2.68 to the jury, State v. Connell, 523 S.W.2d 132, 138 (Mo.App.1975); whether the trial court gave a curative type instruction to disregard the improper comment, State v. Raspberry, 452 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Mo.1970); and the strength of the state’s case, State v. Connell, supra, 523 S.W.2d at 138 .

1976In determining whether an improper comment was so clearly injurious that a new trial should be required, we consider three factors: whether the trial court gave a cautionary instruction, MAI-CR 2.68 to the jury, State v. Connell, 523 S.W.2d 132, 138 (Mo.App.1975); whether the trial court gave a curative type instruction to disregard the improper comment, State v. Raspberry, 452 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Mo.1970); and the strength of the state’s case, State v. Connell, supra, 523 S.W.2d at 138 .

1976In determining whether an improper comment was so clearly injurious that a new trial should be required, we consider three factors: whether the trial court gave a cautionary instruction, MAI-CR 2.68 to the jury, State v. Connell, 523 S.W.2d 132, 138 (Mo.App.1975); whether the trial court gave a curative type instruction to disregard the improper comment, State v. Raspberry, 452 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Mo.1970); and the strength of the state’s case, State v. Connell, supra, 523 S.W.2d at 138 .