State v. Anthony, 577 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Anthony, 577 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Purl (moctapp, 2007-10-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Purl
Mo. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
“The golden thread running through all the cases on this subject is an inquiry into whether the prosecutor’s statement of his belief appears to be based on the evidence which has been introduced before the jury.” State v. Anthony, 577 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Slankard
Mo. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
While it is true that “[a] prosecutor ... may not express an opinion implying knowledge of facts unavailable to the jury,” State v. Roberts, 838 S.W.2d 126, 130 (Mo.App.1992), a prosecutor “may comment on the evidence and the credibility of the defendant’s case.” State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 683 (Mo. banc 1998). ‘“The golden thread running through all the cases on this subject is an inquiry into whether the prosecutor’s statement of his belief appears to be based on the evidence which has been introduced before the jury.’ ” State v. Link, 965 S.W.2d 906, 912 (Mo.App.l998)…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Link
Mo. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
State v. Anthony, 577 S.W.2d 161, 162-63 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hurtt
Mo. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
The prosecutor’s belief was an opinion “fairly based on the evidence.” State v. Grant, supra. See State v. Richardson, 783 S.W.2d 511, 513 (Mo.App.1990); State v. Anthony, 577 S.W.2d 161, 162-163 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Richardson
Mo. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
The prosecutor’s belief was an opinion “fairly based on the evidence.” State v. Grant, supra. See State v. Anthony, 577 S.W.2d 161, 162-163 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Wilson
Mo. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
State v. Anthony, 577 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Mo.App.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Stribling
Mo. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
State v. Anthony, 577 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Mo.App.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ferguson
Mo. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
There is nothing which prohibits a prosecutor from commenting upon the truth or falsity of the testimony of a witness, and determination of whether such comments have “exceeded the leeway granted him in such comment is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Harris, 622 S.W.2d 330, 336 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Anthony, 577 S.W.2d 161, 168 (Mo.App.1979); and Heinz, supra at 880 .
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Carl D. ANTHONY, Appellant
KCD 29801.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jan 29, 1979.
577 S.W.2d 161
Clifford A. Cohen, Public Defender, Lee Nation, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant., John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Shangler, Swofford, Wasserstrom.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
WASSERSTROM, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a jury conviction of burglary second degree and stealing and the consequent sentence of six years and two years respectively to run consecutively. His sole point on appeal complains of an alleged improper closing argument by the prosecuting attorney.

An understanding of the point in issue requires a brief statement of facts. Police officers Cunningham and Rider received a call at 10:08 P.M. concerning a prowler at 2127 East 16th Street, Kansas City, Missouri. Cunningham approached that address from the front, while Rider approached from the rear. Rider saw defendant close to the building, carrying a bulky bundle. When Rider got closer, defendant saw him, dropped the bundle and started to run. Rider nevertheless apprehended defendant quickly and placed him under arrest. The back door of the building was found to have been broken in and the premises ransacked. A search of the defendant revealed in defendant’s pants pocket two rings which belonged to the owner of the burglarized premises. The objects in the bundle dropped by defendant also had come from those premises.

The only evidence offered by defendant was the testimony of Victor Shivers. Shivers testified that defendant had visited him at his home, which was in close proximity to the burglarized premises, shortly before 10:00 P.M. He further testified that defendant left shortly after the 10:00 o’clock news came on television and that defendant could not have participated in the burglary in the two or three minutes which expired between the time that defendant left and the time when Shivers observed police officers in back of the burglarized premises.

In the course of his closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor took up Shivers’ testimony and referred to it as follows: “I don’t see how you can believe him at all. And there are about two or three reasons why I don’t believe him * * *Defense counsel immediately objected, but his objection was overruled. This ruling by the trial court constitutes the alleged error now complained of.

It is true that a prosecutor will not be permitted to argue to the jury in such a way as to induce the jurors to believe that he has special knowledge of certain facts which show the defendant on trial to be[*163] guilty. On the other hand, the prosecutor does have a right to comment on the evidence which has been adduced and the credibility of the witnesses from the State’s viewpoint. State v. Sallee, 436 S.W.2d 246 (Mo.1969); State v. Gay, 523 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App.1975). The golden thread running through all the cases on this subject is an inquiry into whether the prosecutor’s statement of his belief appears to be based on the evidence which has been introduced before the jury. State v. Watts, 515 S.W.2d 854, l.c. 856 (Mo.App.1974).

Here, as in Watts, the prosecutor did follow up his statement as to his belief as to nonbelief in Shivers’ testimony by reference to evidence in the case upon which that belief was based. Accordingly, the trial court did not commit error in overruling the defense objection to that argument.

Affirmed.

All concur.