reasonable probability error in Missouri

2024Even if this Court finds the trial court abused its discretion, we will reverse only if the error was “so prejudicial that it is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Martin, 388 S.W.3d 528, 535 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 145-46 (Mo. banc 2007)).

2024Even if this Court finds the trial court abused its discretion, we will only reverse if the error was “so prejudicial that it is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Martin, 388 S.W.3d 528, 535 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 145-46 (Mo. banc 2007)); see also Schachtner, 611 S.W.3d at 890.

2024Even if this Court finds the trial court abused its discretion, we will reverse only if the error was “so prejudicial that it is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Martin, 388 S.W.3d 528, 535 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 145-46 (Mo. banc 2007)).

2024Even if this Court finds the trial court abused its discretion, we will only reverse if the error was “so prejudicial that it is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Martin, 388 S.W.3d 528, 535 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 145-46 (Mo. banc 2007)); see also Schachtner, 611 S.W.3d at 890.

2023State v. Turner, 367 S.W.3d 183, 188 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012).

2023State v. Turner, 367 S.W.3d 183, 188 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012).

2021State v. Shelton, 314 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009); see also Ragland, 494 S.W.3d at 622–23 (“[E]rror in admitting evidence is not prejudicial requiring reversal unless it is outcome-determinative.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2017We will not reverse for an error in the admission of evidence unless “there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Shelton, 314 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Mo. App. 2009). 3 “A hearsay statement is any out-of-court statement that is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that depends on the veracity of the statement for its value.” State v. Sutherland, 939 S.W.2d 373, 376 (Mo. banc 1997).

2014State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Mo. banc 2009).

2014State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Mo. banc 2009).

2004For this reason, “[a] conviction will be reversed due to admission of improper evidence only if Appellant proves prejudice by showing a reasonable probability that in the absence of such evidence the verdict would have been different.” State v. Kreidler, 122 S.W.3d 646, 649 (Mo.App.2003); see also State v. Barriner, 111 S.W.3d 396, 401 (Mo. banc 2003) (trial error does not require reversal unless there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial).

2004State v. Barriner, 111 S.W.3d 396, 401 (Mo.banc 2003).

2023Perkins, 656 S.W.3d at 302 (citing State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 , 223–24 (Mo. banc 2006)).

2016Id. at 224 .

2024Id. at 533-34 (quoting State v. Zink, 181 S.W.3d 66, 73 (Mo. banc 2005)).

2024See Secrist, 356 S.W.3d at 284 (“There is no question that there is a reasonable probability that this error prejudiced Appellants . . .” where evidence of appellant’s blood THC levels erroneously was admitted into evidence and jury found appellant 80 percent at fault for falling down elevator shaft).

2024State v. Pickens, 332 S.W.3d 303, 318 (Mo. App. 2011).

2024A. Rape shield Exception Missouri’s rape shield statute “creates a presumption that a victim’s prior sexual conduct is not relevant to sex-crime prosecutions.” State v. Rycraw, 507 S.W.3d 47, 56 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing State v. Johnson, 479 S.W.3d 762, 766 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016)).

2024“When the prejudice resulting from the improper admission of evidence is only evidence-specific and the evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming, reversal is not required.” State v. Barriner, 34 S.W.3d 139, 150 (Mo. banc 2000).

2024A. Rape shield Exception Missouri’s rape shield statute “creates a presumption that a victim’s prior sexual conduct is not relevant to sex-crime prosecutions.” State v. Rycraw, 507 S.W.3d 47, 56 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing State v. Johnson, 479 S.W.3d 762, 766 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016)).

2023“If reasonable minds could differ on the propriety of the ruling, no abuse of discretion has occurred.” State v. Tillitt, 552 S.W.3d 571, 580 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting State v. Benedict, 319 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)).

2023“If reasonable minds could differ on the propriety of the ruling, no abuse of discretion has occurred.” State v. Tillitt, 552 S.W.3d 571, 580 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting State v. Benedict, 319 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)).

2021State v. Shelton, 314 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009); see also Ragland, 494 S.W.3d at 622–23 (“[E]rror in admitting evidence is not prejudicial requiring reversal unless it is outcome-determinative.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2017Discussion As a general matter, “warrant-less searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable and unconstitutional.” State v. Oliver, 293 S.W.3d 437, 442 (Mo. banc 2009).

2017See S.F.M.D. v. F.D., 477 S.W.3d 626, 636 (Mo.App. 2015); Rule 84.13(b).

2017We will not reverse for an error in the admission of evidence unless “there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Shelton, 314 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Mo. App. 2009). 3 “A hearsay statement is any out-of-court statement that is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that depends on the veracity of the statement for its value.” State v. Sutherland, 939 S.W.2d 373, 376 (Mo. banc 1997).