In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Eastern District
DIVISION FOUR
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED106193
)
Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of Monroe County
vs. )
) Honorable David C. Mobley
CARL E. EMERSON, )
)
Appellant. ) FILED: April 2, 2019
Introduction
Carl E. Emerson (“Emerson”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury
convicted him of second-degree assault, first-degree assault, and armed criminal action.
Alleging four points of error, Emerson contends the trial court abused its discretion in (1)
overruling Emerson’s objection to the State’s voir dire question on whether the use of a racial
epithet justifies violence; (2) denying Emerson’s request for a writ of body attachment; (3)
refusing Emerson’s proffered verdict directors; and (4) overruling Emerson’s objection to the
State’s reference in closing argument that the lesser-included offense of third-degree assault is a
misdemeanor. Because the State’s inquiry in voir dire was relevant to revealing potentially
disqualifying biases in the venire panel, we find no error in the trial court’s handling of voir dire.
Because Emerson did not effect valid service on the witness, the trial court lacked the authority
to issue a writ of body attachment. Further, the trial court committed no prejudicial instructional
error because the evidence and instructions at trial clearly show the verdict directors contravened
the alibi instruction and did not impair Emerson’s alibi defense. Lastly, the record demonstrates
Emerson was not prejudiced by the State’s errant but isolated and fleeting reference to
sentencing classifications. Accordingly, because we find no abuses of the trial court’s discretion,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Factual and Procedural History
On the evening of March 27, 2016, Emerson was at the home of an acquaintance
(“Witness”) and overheard Victim using the N-word while telling a story about a relative who
was a member of a white supremacist gang. Emerson confronted Victim about the use of the
racial epithet and proceeded to punch and kick him. Emerson retrieved a pistol, loaded bullets,
and shot Victim, injuring him. Emerson threatened to shoot everyone present, saying he was not
going to leave any witnesses. Emerson shot and injured two other individuals before fleeing the
scene. The police pursued Emerson and arrested him after a brief standoff.
The State charged Emerson with first-degree assault and armed criminal action for each
of the three shooting victims. The six charges were consolidated, and the case proceeded to a
jury trial. During voir dire, the State asked the venire panel: “You’re going to hear evidence of a
story that was being told that involves the use of the N-word. Everybody knows what I mean.
Does anyone here think that that justifies shooting somebody?” Emerson objected on the basis
that the question called for a legal conclusion and sought commitment from the jury. The trial
court overruled the objection. The State inquired whether the venire panel understood the
question and noted that no venirepersons raised their hands.
During the trial, one of the shooting victims testified about sending Facebook messages
to a person identified as T.W. The victim identified T.W.’s Facebook name and profile picture,
but denied sending Facebook messages to T.W. stating that someone else, not Emerson, was the
2
shooter. Emerson subpoenaed T.W. to appear as a witness at trial to authenticate the Facebook
messages. Emerson served T.W. the subpoena by having the subpoena read aloud to her over the
phone. After T.W. failed to appear in court, Emerson requested a writ of body attachment to
compel her appearance. Following an offer of proof by Emerson, the trial court denied the
request to issue a writ of body attachment, determining both that T.W.’s testimony would not lay
a foundation for the Facebook messages and that Emerson did not effect valid service of the
subpoena upon T.W.
The State’s evidence of the timeline of the offenses included testimony from the victims
that Emerson was at Witness’s home when they arrived between 10 p.m. and midnight. Around
1:00 a.m., the police received a report of shots fired. Emerson presented an alibi defense through
testimony from Cory Culp (“Culp). Emerson’s alibi was that he could not have committed the
shootings at Witness’s home because Emerson was at his grandmother’s home at the time of the
shootings. In support of Emerson’s alibi, Culp testified that around 8:00 p.m., he and Emerson
were at Centerville Apartments, where Emerson talked with Witness. Culp and Emerson left
Centerville Apartments at about 9:30 p.m. and drove around town. Culp then drove Emerson at
11:30 p.m. to Emerson’s grandmother’s home at the Mark Twain Senior Apartments, where
Emerson stayed the entire night.
At the jury instruction conference, Emerson objected to the verdict directors proffered by
the State on the basis that the instructions did not track verbatim the date, time, and place set
forth in the alibi instruction pursuant to the Notes on Use for Missouri Approved Instructions–
Criminal (“MAI-CR”) 4th 408.04. The alibi instruction stated:
3
One of the issues in this case is whether the defendant was present at 1021 Fulton
Avenue, Hannibal, Missouri between 11:30 o’clock p.m. 1 on March 27, 2016 and
2:30 o’clock a.m. on March 28, 2016. On that issue, you are instructed as follows:
1. The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
was present at the time and place the offense is alleged to have been committed.
2. If the evidence in this case leaves in your mind a reasonable doubt that the
defendant was present at 1021 Fulton Avenue, Hannibal, Missouri between 11:00
o’clock p.m. on March 27, 2016 and 2:30 o’clock a.m. on March 28, 2016, then
you must find the defendant not guilty.
The verdict directors for the assault charges, including the lesser-included charges, and
armed criminal action charges instructed the jury to find Emerson guilty if it found that Emerson
committed the charged conduct “on or about March 28, 2016 in the City of Hannibal, Township
of Mason, County of Marion, State of Missouri[.]” The trial court overruled Emerson’s
objection and refused Emerson’s proffered verdict directors tracking the precise date, time, and
place of the alibi instruction.
The trial court proceeded to read the instructions to the jury. The trial court instructed the
jury that the attorneys’ closing arguments are intended to help in understanding the evidence and
applying the law, but are not evidence. The trial court also instructed the jury not to single out
certain instructions and disregard others.
In its closing argument, the State argued that the jury should convict Emerson of first-
degree assault rather than either of the lesser-included offenses of assault in the second or third
degree. The State reasoned the evidence supported finding Emerson acted with the mental state
required for first-degree assault as opposed to third-degree assault, stating:
STATE: Now so far as assault in the third degree . . .
....
So how can you say it was just reckless?
1
Emerson’s submitted alibi instruction refers to both 11:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. in describing the range for the time
of the offenses. Emerson does not put this negligible time difference at issue on appeal.
4
How can you not say that it was not knowingly when he
intentionally said—think of the words that were said. “Heart still
beating?” You know. “This is for cops.” You know. “You’re going
to get it.” You know.
Those are intentional words. That ups the level of seriousness to
assault in the first degree. That’s a misdemeanor. Are you telling
me that what—
DEFENSE: Judge, may we approach?
Emerson objected to the State informing the jury that third-degree assault was a
misdemeanor because the statement improperly referred to sentencing matters. The trial court
overruled Emerson’s objection.
The jury convicted Emerson of two counts of assault in the second degree, one count of
assault in the first degree, and one count of armed criminal action. The sentencing court
sentenced Emerson to a total of thirty-nine years in prison. Emerson now appeals.
Points on Appeal
Emerson raises four points on appeal, each alleging the trial court abused its discretion.
In Point One, Emerson contends the trial court erred in allowing, over Emerson’s objection, the
State’s voir dire question of whether use of the N-word justifies shooting someone. Emerson
suggests the question was argumentative and intended to make prospective jurors commit
themselves to a certain view of the evidence, which prejudiced Emerson by impacting the jury’s
view of the evidence. In Point Two, Emerson maintains the trial court erred in refusing to issue a
writ of body attachment because Emerson laid a proper foundation and summoned the witness in
compliance with Missouri service requirements which permit reading the subpoena aloud.
Emerson contends he was prejudiced by this error because the witness would have authenticated
the exculpatory Facebook messages. In Point Three, Emerson argues the trial court erred in
failing to include the date, time, and place language of the alibi instruction in the verdict
directing instructions as required by MAI-CR 408.04 Notes on Use. Emerson submits this error
5
undermined the jury’s fair consideration of his alibi defense. In Point Four, Emerson claims the
trial court erred in overruling his objection to the State’s closing argument characterizing third-
degree assault as a misdemeanor because that statement improperly submitted the issue of
punishment, which prejudiced Emerson by creating a reasonable likelihood that the jury did not
fully consider the lesser-included offense of third-degree assault.
Standard of Review
We review each point of error in this appeal to determine if the trial court abused its
discretion. See State v. Reyes, 108 S.W.3d 161, 165, 168 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (reviewing a
trial court’s rulings on objections during voir dire and closing argument); State v. Moore, 359
S.W.3d 520, 523 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (reviewing the denial of a writ of body attachment);
State v. Casey, 517 S.W.3d 570, 574 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (reviewing instructional error). “A
trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances
and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful
consideration.” State v. Beckett, 540 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citing State v.
Johnson, 207 S.W.3d 24, 40 (Mo. banc 2006)). To be granted relief on appeal under the abuse of
discretion standard, the defendant must show he was prejudiced by the trial court’s error “to the
extent that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome at trial would have been different
had the error not been committed.” State v. Tramble, 383 S.W.3d 34, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012)
(citing State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 537, 540 (Mo. banc 2010)). We defer to the trial court’s
findings of fact and credibility. State v. Snider, 535 S.W.3d 382, 387 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).
We review questions of law de novo. Id.
6
Discussion
I. Point One—Voir Dire Questioning
Emerson’s first point challenges the trial court’s ruling in voir dire by permitting the State
to ask the venire panel the following: “You’re going to hear evidence of a story that was being
told that involves the use of the N-word. Everybody knows what I mean. Does anyone here
think that that justifies shooting somebody?” Emerson objected to this inquiry, preserving his
claim of error for appellate review. Emerson asserts prejudicial error because the question was
argumentative and intended to make potential jurors speculate about the evidence and commit
themselves to a certain view of the evidence.
The trial court is best positioned to determine whether a disclosure of facts during voir
dire sufficiently protects the defendant’s right to an impartial jury without prejudicially trying the
case on voir dire through presentation of the facts in explicit detail. Beckett, 540 S.W.3d at 886
(citing State v. Oates, 12 S.W.3d 307, 310–11 (Mo. banc 2000)); Reyes, 108 S.W.3d at 165–66.
We will not gainsay the trial court’s ruling on the appropriateness of a voir dire question unless it
was so “clearly against the logic of the circumstances” that it “shock[s] the sense of justice and
indicate[s] a lack of careful consideration.” Beckett, 540 S.W.3d at 886. Further, “a liberal
attitude is allowed in the examination of jurors, as long as the scope of voir dire remains
commensurate with its purpose to discover bias or prejudice in order to select a fair and impartial
jury.” State v. Ousley, 419 S.W.3d 65, 73 (Mo. banc 2013) (internal citation omitted). During
voir dire, counsel may expose the venire panel to critical facts “with substantial potential for
disqualifying bias.” Id. However,
the purpose of exposing prospective jurors to critical facts of the case is to discover
bias, not to create bias. Questions may not be phrased in such a way as to attempt
to elicit a commitment from jurors how they would react to hypothetical facts or
seek to predispose jurors to react a certain way to anticipated evidence.
7
Id. (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, “counsel may not extract a commitment from a
venireperson to a particular course of action.” State v. Delancy, 258 S.W.3d 110, 114 (Mo. App.
E.D. 2008) (internal quotation omitted); but see Ousley, 419 S.W.3d at 74 (internal quotation
omitted) (“[N]ot every question that asks whether a venireperson would ‘automatically’ reach a
conclusion seeks an improper commitment.”).
Here, the State asked whether use of the N-word justifies shooting someone. Without
question, the State’s comment introduced a critical fact in the case to the venire panel—the
Victim’s use of a racial epithet. However, given the latitude extended to voir dire questioning,
and the trial court’s discretion in controlling the jury selection process, we are not persuaded the
trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State’s question. 2 See Ousley, 419 S.W.3d at 73;
Beckett, 540 S.W.3d at 886.
The State’s question permissibly explores potentially disqualifying biases in the venire
panel, as “[c]ounsel may probe the venire [panel] for preconceived prejudices which would
prevent the jurors from following the [trial] court’s instructions.” State v. Crawford, 904 S.W.2d
402, 408 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). Indeed, we have upheld a voir dire question as not improperly
seeking commitment when the State is “merely attempting to elicit any potential sympathies the
juror may have for [a] defendant . . . [because] [a]ny positive response might bear upon the
juror’s ability to follow the trial court’s instructions.” Id.; see also State v. Bullock, 179 S.W.3d
413, 416–17 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court allowed
counsel to inquire during voir dire whether “anyone believe[s] it’s okay for an adult to have
sexual relations or sexual intercourse with a person who’s less than [twelve] years old?”); State
2
Our holding does not sanction the use of a racial epithet in a question that is “particularly harmful and
inflammatory” as well as unnecessary when the question could have been adequately posed without it. See State v.
Wiley, 337 S.W.3d 41, 46, 47 n.11 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (asking whether words or insults could justify use of
physical force against another person).
8
v. Neal, 591 S.W.2d 178, 181–82 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979) (finding no abuse of discretion where
the trial court allowed a voir dire question whether evidence that the victim had been previously
assaulted by the defendant meant “the person would have the right to kill the other person”). In
Crawford, where the defendant’s chain was stolen by the victim, the State asked prospective
jurors whether anyone believed that if a person steals something he should be put to death. 904
S.W.2d at 408. There, we found no abuse of discretion when the trial court overruled the
defendant’s objection, because the question inquired into the critical facts of what instigated the
defendant’s actions. Id. Here, the same analysis supports the trial court’s decision to allow the
State to inquire into the critical facts of what instigated Emerson’s actions.
Furthermore, we are not induced to find that the State’s question was intended to
precondition the jury. See Beckett, 540 S.W.3d at 888 (finding a voir dire question improperly
seeks a commitment when it is “not designed to seek information about a critical fact but,
instead, [is] intended to precondition the jury to [counsel’s] theory”); see also State v. Robinson,
831 S.W.2d 667, 669–70 (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining an
objection to and clarifying a question asking the venire panel whether women ever deserve a
black eye). In Beckett, the Western District determined defense counsel improperly sought a
commitment from the venire panel by asking: “You are going to hear that there were two shots in
this case, and I have got to know right now if that fact, that fact alone does it for you?” Beckett,
540 S.W.3d at 887–88. The Western District reasoned that “the fact that two shots were fired
was not a fact that, in and of itself, had any potential for disqualifying bias.” Id. at 887. Rather,
the question solicited a commitment from the venire panel whether the defendant could be
convicted solely on the basis of the defendant having fired two shots, thereby preconditioning the
venire panel to the defendant’s theory of the case. Id. at 888. We find the present case is
9
distinguishable from Beckett because here the State inquired into a critical fact—the Victim’s
use of a racial epithet—which had potential to reveal a disqualifying bias that would cause a
juror to render a verdict contrary to the law. See Beckett, 540 S.W.3d at 886 (citing Oates, 12
S.W.3d at 310–11); Ousley, 419 S.W.3d 65, 73–75 (holding counsel should have been allowed to
ask whether anyone on the venire panel would automatically believe that sex between two
teenage persons was not consensual, because a personal belief that a teenager could never
consent to sexual activity was contrary to the law to be applied in the case); see also State v.
Mosely, 534 S.W.3d 879, 885 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (citing State v. Wiley, 337 S.W.3d 41, 46
(Mo. App. S.D. 2011)) (explaining that Wiley affirmed striking a venireperson for his response
to the question “whether words or insults could justify use of physical force against another”
because “his opinion that words about race would justify violence [was] contrary to the law that
would be instructed in that case.”). We find that the State’s question about whether a racial
epithet justifies violence permissibly probed into biases and prejudices that could prevent the
prospective jurors from following the applicable law and instructions of the trial court. See
Crawford, 904 S.W.2d at 408; Ousley, 419 S.W.3d at 74.
Having found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Emerson’s
objection, we need not consider the issue of prejudice. Becket, 540 S.W.3d at 888. Point One is
denied.
II. Point Two—Writ of Body Attachment
Emerson next contests the trial court’s denial of his request for the trial court to issue a
writ of body attachment to compel the attendance of a witness. At issue here is whether Emerson
properly served the witness by having the subpoena read aloud to the witness—a method that
10
complies with the service requirements of Section 491.120 3, but not with Rule 26.02. 4 Because
Rule 26.02 governs, the trial court did not err in refusing to issue the writ because the witness
was never properly served.
When a subpoenaed witness fails to appear, the party who served the subpoena may
request the court issue a writ of body attachment to compel the witness’s attendance. Section
491.150; Smith v. Dir. of Revenue, 410 S.W.3d 703, 705 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). A trial court
may issue a writ of attachment when the party seeking the witness’s attendance has both “duly
summoned” the witness and shown that the “absent witness is material, and that [the defendant]
cannot safely go to trial without [the witness’s] testimony.” Section 491.160. Importantly, “a
trial court may not issue a writ of body attachment until the witness has failed to obey a validly
executed subpoena, which requires evidence that the witness was properly served.” Smith, 410
S.W.3d at 705 (citing Moore, 259 S.W.3d at 523). A trial court does not abuse its discretion by
declining to issue a writ of attachment for a witness who has not been properly served. Id.
In a criminal case, proper service of a subpoena requires delivering a copy of the
subpoena to the witness. Rule 26.02(d); Moore, 359 S.W.3d at 523. The record shows that
Emerson did not deliver a copy of the subpoena to T.W. Thus, Emerson did not comply with
Rule 26.02(d). Emerson counters that reading the subpoena to T.W. complied with Section
491.120, the general provision for serving subpoenas. Section 491.120 provides that “[t]he
service of a subpoena to testify shall be by reading the same or delivering a copy thereof to the
person to be summoned[.]” Section 491.120 (emphasis added). Emerson maintains that the
more permissive Section 491.120 controls. We disagree.
3
All statutory references are to RSMo (2016), unless otherwise indicated.
4
All Rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. (2016), unless otherwise indicated.
11
The Supreme Court of Missouri promulgated rules to effectuate the authority vested in
the Court by the Missouri Constitution. State ex rel. Collector of Winchester v. Jamison, 357
S.W.3d 589, 592 (Mo. banc 2012). 5 The Rules of Criminal Procedure “are promulgated
pursuant to authority granted this Court by Section 5 of Article V of the constitution of Missouri
and supersede all statutes and court rules inconsistent therewith.” Rule 19.02. 6 Thus, “if there is
a conflict between [the Supreme] Court’s rules and a statute, the rule always prevails if it
addresses practice, procedure or pleadings.” State v. Johnstone, 486 S.W.3d 424, 432 (Mo. App.
W.D. 2016) (quoting State ex rel. Union Elec. Co. v. Barnes, 893 S.W.2d 804, 805 (Mo. banc
1995)). Service of process is a procedural matter. Scheidegger, 451 S.W.2d at 137–38.
Any inconsistency between Section 491.120 and Rule 26.02 resolves in favor of Rule
26.02. Rule 19.02; Johnstone, 486 S.W.3d at 432. Because Emerson did not properly serve the
absent witness under the requirements of Rule 26.02(d), the trial court lacked authority to issue a
writ of body attachment and, as a result, properly denied Emerson’s request. Point Two is
denied.
III. Point Three—Alibi Instruction Tracking in Verdict Directors
A. Briefing Requirements for Instructional Error under Rule 84.04(e)
Before addressing the substance of Emerson’s claim under Point Three, we consider the
preliminary matter of the State’s challenge to Emerson’s compliance with appellate briefing
requirements for jury instructions. Rule 84.04(e) 7 provides that when a point on appeal “relates
to the giving, refusal, or modification of an instruction, such instruction shall be set forth in full
5
Rules on procedural service requirements are not substantive in that such rules do not create, define, or regulate
rights and thus do not violate the separation of powers. See Elliott v. Elliott, 612 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Mo. App. S.D.
1981) (citing Scheidegger v. Greene, 451 S.W.2d 135, 137–38 (Mo. 1970)) (noting service of process is procedural,
not substantive).
6
Relatedly, the General Assembly has the power to annul or amend procedural rules under article V, section 5 of the
Missouri Constitution. Jamison, 357 S.W.3d at 592–93.
7
All references to Rule 84.04 are to Mo. R. Civ. P. (2016).
12
in the argument portion of the brief.” Rule 84.04(e); see also Marmaduke v. CBL & Assocs.
Mgmt., Inc., 521 S.W.3d 257, 275 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). Rule 84.04(e) was created “to enable
the court to determine whether the instruction involved was in proper form and correctly stated
the law.” State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 358 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979). Consequently, “[a]n
appellant who asserts instructional error but does not set forth the instruction in question in the
argument portion of his or her brief[] fails to preserve the issue for appeal.” Sheehan v. Nw.
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 103 S.W.3d 121, 132 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). However, if the absence of the
instruction does not prevent us from conducting a sufficient legal analysis, we may exercise our
discretion to review the merits of the argument. Marmaduke, 521 S.W.3d at 275; Burbridge v.
Union Pac. R. Co., 413 S.W.3d 649, 653 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).
Emerson’s allegation of instructional error does not comply with the strict requirements
of Rule 84.04(e) because he neither appends the refused verdict directors to the record nor
includes them in full in the argument section of his brief. Rule 84.04(e); Marmaduke, 521
S.W.3d at 275. However, we note that in the argument portion of his brief, Emerson offers the
contested portion of the refused verdict directors, as well as the relevant portion of the alibi
instruction. Despite Emerson’s failure to strictly adhere to Rule 84.04(e), the truncated
instructions offered in his argument provide us sufficient information to determine whether the
proffered instructions correctly stated the law. We review the claim on its merits ex gratia.
Marmaduke, 521 S.W.3d at 275; Burbridge, 413 S.W.3d at 653 n.3.
B. Alibi and Verdict Director Instructions
Emerson contends the trial court erred by refusing to give his proposed verdict directors
which precisely tracked the date, time, and place language from the alibi instruction. In
particular, Emerson’s alibi instruction provided that: “One of the issues in this case is whether
the defendant was present at 1021 Fulton Avenue, Hannibal, Missouri between 11:30 o’clock
13
p.m. on March 27, 2016 and 2:30 o’clock a.m. on March 28, 2016.” The verdict directors stated
the offenses occurred “on or about March 28, 2016 in the City of Hannibal, Township of Mason,
County of Marion, State of Missouri[.]” Emerson alleges the discrepancy between date, time,
and place in the alibi and verdict director instructions violated the MAI-CR 408.08.4 Notes on
Use and caused the jury to not fairly consider his alibi defense.
To prevail, Emerson must first show the verdict directors violated the Notes on Use.
Rule 28.02(f); State v. Daly, 798 S.W.2d 725, 728 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990). If the verdict
directors violated the Notes on Use, the resulting error’s prejudicial effect is to be judicially
determined. Rule 28.02(f). The error raises a presumption of prejudice that is rebutted if the
facts and instructions together clearly show no prejudice exists. State v. Starr, 998 S.W.2d 61,
65 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999). In the context of alibi instructions, prejudice from an instructional
error is rebutted when the error is clearly shown not to impair a defendant’s alibi defense. Daly,
798 S.W.2d at 729 (citing State v. Graves, 588 S.W.2d 495, 498 (Mo. banc 1979)).
MAI-CR 408.04 Notes on Use provide guidance on conforming a verdict director to an
alibi instruction. Specifically, “[w]here the evidence is sufficient to support the giving of an alibi
instruction, the date, time, and place must be stated with sufficient detail in the verdict directing
instruction to contravene the alibi evidence.” MAI-CR 404.04.4 Notes on Use. Importantly,
neither MAI-CR 408.04 Notes on Use nor its referenced MAI-CR 404.02 Notes On Use demand
that the verdict director track the date, time, and place language in the alibi instruction verbatim.
See State v. Meyers, 770 S.W.2d 312, 316 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989); But cf. State v. Leisure, 810
S.W.2d 560, 574 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (observing the date and time in the verdict director
should mirror the date and time in the alibi instruction). Here, we recognize that “on or about
March 28, 2016 in the City of Hannibal” is significantly less detailed than “at 1021 Fulton
14
Avenue, Hannibal, Missouri between 11:30 o’clock p.m. on March 27, 2016 and 2:30 o’clock
a.m. on March 28, 2016.” However, even if the trial court erred in refusing Emerson’s proposed
verdict directors, we are satisfied that the verdict directors and evidence in the record clearly
rebut any presumption of prejudice because the verdict directors given by the trial court did not
impair Emerson’s alibi defense. See Starr, 998 S.W.2d at 65; Daly, 798 S.W.2d at 729.
Missouri courts have held that an instructional error impairs a defendant’s alibi defense
only when the instruction allows the jury to believe simultaneously both the State’s evidence and
the defendant’s alibi evidence. State v. Roden, 674 S.W.2d 50, 57 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984); Daly,
798 S.W.2d at 729 (citing Graves, 598 S.W.2d at 498) (noting an error does not prejudicially
impair the defendant’s alibi when the evidence clearly contrasts the alibi and the alleged
offense). This rule stems from the notion that an alibi defense aims to contravene the State’s
claim that the defendant was present at the time and place of the offense, and thus a successful
alibi defense creates reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s presence at the time and place
of the offense. State v. York, 931 S.W.2d 185, 188–89 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996).
Here, the evidence for the alibi and the alleged offenses sufficiently contravene one
another such that the jury could not believe Emerson’s alibi and simultaneously believe that
Emerson committed the shootings. Roden, 674 S.W.2d at 57; Daly, 798 S.W.2d at 729. The
trial court read Emerson’s requested alibi instruction, which instructed the jury to find Emerson
not guilty if the evidence in the case created a reasonable doubt that Emerson was at the scene of
the crime “between 11:30 o’clock p.m. on March 27, 2016 and 2:30 o’clock a.m. on March 28,
2016.” Emerson’s alibi evidence consisted of testimony from Culp, who stated that around 9:30
p.m., he and Emerson left Centerville Apartments. At 11:30 p.m., Culp brought Emerson to
Emerson’s grandmother’s apartment, where Emerson remained overnight. Emerson’s evidence
15
supporting his alibi instruction focused on the fact that he was at his grandmother’s home—and
not at Witness’s home, the scene of the crime—uninterrupted from 11:30 p.m. until the
following morning. 8 The State’s evidence at trial was that Emerson was at Witness’s home
when the victims arrived between 10:00 p.m. and midnight, Emerson shot the three victims, and
the police received a call at approximately 1:00 a.m. reporting shots fired. Viewing the
instructions as a whole and the evidence adduced at trial, the jury could not have concluded both
that Emerson committed the shootings at Witness’s home and that Emerson was with Culp and
then at his grandmother’s home the entire night. See Roden, 674 S.W.2d at 57. The clear
conflict between the alibi and the defense ensures the jury was not confused or misled when
considering the two divergent explanations of Emerson’s location at the time of the shootings.
See Daly, 798 S.W.2d at 728–29. Accordingly, the verdict directors did not nullify Emerson’s
alibi defense. See id. Because any presumption of prejudice arising from instructional error here
did not impair Emerson’s alibi offense, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
rejecting Emerson’s proffered verdict directors. See id. (citing Graves, 588 S.W.2d at 498);
Roden, 674 S.W.2d at 57. Point Three is denied.
IV. Point Four—Closing Argument Misstatement
In Point Four, Emerson maintains the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his
objection to the State’s comment during closing argument that third-degree assault is classified
as a misdemeanor. Emerson challenges the remark as improper because it informed the jury of
sentencing matters not in evidence or before the jury. Further, Emerson argues the remark
8
We note that the trial court acknowledged it was giving Emerson the benefit of the alibi instruction despite Culp’s
testimony accounting for Emerson’s whereabouts only until 11:30 p.m. and estimating that Emerson’s
grandmother’s home was within walking distance of Witness’s home.
16
prejudiced him by causing the jury to not fully consider convicting Emerson on the lesser-
included offense of third-degree assault.
While the State has wide latitude in drawing inferences from the record when presenting
its closing argument, the arguments must be fairly drawn from the evidence. State v. Miller, 226
S.W.3d 262, 268 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (citing State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 228 (Mo. banc
2006)); see also State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727, 748 (Mo. banc 2012). The State’s closing
argument during the guilt-phase of a trial may not discuss matters not in evidence, including
sentencing. State v. Ware, 793 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990). “Arguments which
suggest that the jury determine guilt, or the level of guilt, on the basis of a desired punishment
have been consistently treated as improper[.]” Id. In Ware, the State argued the following:
“That man (indicating) is entitled to life in prison, that’s what he is entitled to. It’s more than
[the victim] has to look forward to. That’s what he should get. That’s what punishment for
murder first degree is: life imprisonment.” Id. at 414–15. There, we held the State’s argument
was improper because the State injected punishment as the basis the jury should use to determine
the defendant’s guilt. Id. Here, the State classified the lesser-included offense of third-degree
assault as a misdemeanor when highlighting why the jury should convict Emerson of first-
degree, and not third-degree, assault. The comment may have dissuaded the jury from even
considering third-degree assault because a lay person generally understands that the punishment
for misdemeanors is substantially less than that for felonies. The classification of offenses
directs a jury’s attention to sentencing matters not properly before it in the guilt-phase of a
defendant’s trial. See id.; State v. Weimer, 658 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983) (noting the
issue of punishment is not integral to a jury’s determination of guilt or innocence). Without
17
question, the State’s reference to third-degree assault’s misdemeanor classification was
improper. See Ware, 793 S.W.2d at 415. Such comments generally should not be countenanced.
However, though the State’s misdemeanor comment was improper, we are not convinced
that Emerson was prejudiced by the comment. See Tramble, 383 S.W.3d at 37 (citing Deck, 303
S.W.3d at 540) (noting that in order to obtain a reversal, a defendant must show a reasonable
probability that the outcome at trial would have been different absent the trial court’s error in
overruling an objection to closing argument). We will not find prejudice and reverse a trial
court’s ruling on an errant statement in closing argument that is fleeting, unrepeated, and part of
an otherwise appropriate argument. See State v. Storey, 40 S.W.3d 898, 911 (Mo. banc 2001).
The record clearly confirms that the State’s reference to a misdemeanor was made within the
context of a larger and otherwise appropriate argument that the evidence presented at trial
supported a conviction of first-degree assault rather than assault in the second or third degree.
See McFadden, 369 S.W.3d at 747, 749 (finding the State permissibly stated that a verdict of
second-degree murder would be a “victory” for the defendant when arguing that the evidence
supported only a verdict of first-degree murder). Critically, we find the State’s single mention of
the misdemeanor classification of third-degree assault was isolated, fleeting, and had no
demonstrable impact on the jury’s deliberations. See Storey, 40 S.W.3d at 911–12.
Moreover, we presume that the jury follows the directions of the trial court and that the
trial court is in the best position to determine the effect of an improper remark. McFadden, 369
S.W.3d at 752; State v. Davis, 122 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (finding no abuse of
discretion where the trial court’s instructions cured any ill effects of an improper closing
argument remark). Here, the trial court instructed the jury immediately preceding closing
arguments that the attorneys’ arguments are not evidence but rather are intended to help in
18