State v. Jordan, No. 17809
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | SHRUM; PARRISH |
| Citation | 834 S.W.2d 900 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jimmy D. JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 17809 |
| Decision Date | 04 August 1992 |
Page 900
v.
Jimmy D. JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Southern District,
Division One.
Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, for defendant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Rudolph R. Rhodes, IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
SHRUM, Judge.
A jury found the defendant, Jimmy D. Jordan, guilty of the class A felony of forcible rape, § 566.030.1, RSMo 1986, and assessed punishment of 12 years' imprisonment. He appeals; we affirm.
The defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) Whether the trial court committed plain error in failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte following alleged improper closing argument by the prosecutor, and (2) whether a jury instruction defining "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" allowed the jury to convict the defendant on a degree of proof below that required by due process.
On January 13, 1990, the victim and her stepsister were driving around in Caruthersville, Missouri, when they met the defendant and his friend. The four decided to play a game called "Cat and Mouse" in which the occupants of one vehicle hide their vehicle and the occupants of another vehicle try to find the hidden one. The defendant got into the victim's vehicle, and the victim's stepsister got into another vehicle with the defendant's friend. The defendant directed the victim to drive her vehicle "down to the river," and she complied.
While waiting for the others to find them, the victim and the defendant began kissing. When the defendant started kissing her "harder," the victim told him, "No, that I didn't want to. I wanted to leave." The defendant took the keys from the victim, would not let her out of the vehicle, put his hands around her neck and tried to strangle her, pushed her into the back seat, and had sexual intercourse with her.
Following his arrest, the defendant admitted to a highway patrol polygraph operator that he had forced the victim to remove her blue jeans and that he had forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. At trial, the defendant testified that he and the victim had engaged in consensual sexual
Page 901
intercourse, and he denied that he had confessed to the crime.During closing argument, the defense counsel lodged no objection to any of the prosecutor's comments to the jury, and the alleged errors in the state's closing argument were not raised in the defendant's motion for new trial.
Because the alleged errors on the part of the prosecutor in closing argument were not subject to contemporaneous objection and were not raised in the defendant's motion for new trial, they can be examined only under the plain error standard of Rule 30.20. 1 State v. Roberts, 709 S.W.2d 857, 864 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 946, 107 S.Ct. 427, 93 L.Ed.2d 378 (1986).
The defendant requests plain error review by this court, arguing that the prejudice to him from the prosecutor's closing argument rises to the level of manifest injustice and miscarriage of justice....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kelley, Nos. 19988
...his motion for new trial; consequently, we can only review this point under the plain error standard of Rule 30.20. See State v. Jordan, 834 S.W.2d 900, 901 This court explained the constraints of plain error review in State v. Varvera, 897 S.W.2d 198 (Mo.App.1995). "Plain error and pr......
-
State v. Lawson, Nos. 16533
...action would be uninvited interference which itself might constitute error. State v. Watson, 839 S.W.2d at 617. See also State v. Jordan, 834 S.W.2d 900, 901 (Mo.App.1992), and State v. Childers, 801 S.W.2d at 445. To be entitled to relief under the plain error rule, Defendant must go beyon......
-
State v. Vivone, No. 17355
...claims of trial court error concerning closing argument. See, e.g., Smith, 979 S.W.2d at 219; Bogard, 836 S.W.2d at 89; State v. Jordan, 834 S.W.2d 900, 901 Adhering to the foregoing, this court expressly refuses to review Defendant's claims with respect to closing argument. Defendant waive......
-
State v. Crews, Nos. 60731
...783 S.W.2d 82, 97-98 (Mo. banc 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 225, 112 L.Ed.2d 179 (1990); See also, State v. Jordan, 834 S.W.2d 900, 901 (Mo.App.1992); State v. Root, 820 S.W.2d 682, 688 (Mo.App.1991). Point For his final point, Defendant asserts error in the denial of his Ru......
-
State v. Kelley, Nos. 19988
...his motion for new trial; consequently, we can only review this point under the plain error standard of Rule 30.20. See State v. Jordan, 834 S.W.2d 900, 901 This court explained the constraints of plain error review in State v. Varvera, 897 S.W.2d 198 (Mo.App.1995). "Plain error and prejudi......
-
State v. Lawson, Nos. 16533
...action would be uninvited interference which itself might constitute error. State v. Watson, 839 S.W.2d at 617. See also State v. Jordan, 834 S.W.2d 900, 901 (Mo.App.1992), and State v. Childers, 801 S.W.2d at 445. To be entitled to relief under the plain error rule, Defendant must go beyon......
-
State v. Vivone, No. 17355
...claims of trial court error concerning closing argument. See, e.g., Smith, 979 S.W.2d at 219; Bogard, 836 S.W.2d at 89; State v. Jordan, 834 S.W.2d 900, 901 Adhering to the foregoing, this court expressly refuses to review Defendant's claims with respect to closing argument. Defendant waive......
-
State v. Crews, Nos. 60731
...783 S.W.2d 82, 97-98 (Mo. banc 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 225, 112 L.Ed.2d 179 (1990); See also, State v. Jordan, 834 S.W.2d 900, 901 (Mo.App.1992); State v. Root, 820 S.W.2d 682, 688 (Mo.App.1991). Point For his final point, Defendant asserts error in the denial of his Ru......