STATE OF MISSOURI v. BARRY EDWARD GEORGE

Missouri Court of Appeals

STATE OF MISSOURI v. BARRY EDWARD GEORGE

DecidedAugust 31, 2020

DocketSD36280

StatusPublished

This text of STATE OF MISSOURI v. BARRY EDWARD GEORGE (STATE OF MISSOURI v. BARRY EDWARD GEORGE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

STATE OF MISSOURI v. BARRY EDWARD GEORGE, (Mo. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD36280 ) BARRY EDWARD GEORGE, ) FILED: August 31, 2020 ) Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHRISTIAN COUNTY Honorable Laura J. Johnson, Judge AFFIRMED At his trial for DWI and trespass, Appellant relied so completely on his § 563.026 justification defense (his passenger’s alleged medical emergency) that Appellant readily and repeatedly admitted his intoxication and drunk driving: • In opening statement, defense counsel admitted Appellant “was intoxicated; he did drive that vehicle.” • Appellant then testified, under his own attorney’s questioning, that he was “drunk at that time” and “knew [he] shouldn’t be driving.” • In closing argument, defense counsel again told jurors that Appellant “doesn’t deny that he was intoxicated. He doesn’t deny that he operated the motor vehicle.” • Finally, also in closing argument, defense counsel chastised the prosecutor for making such a big deal about how drunk [Appellant] was. We never disputed that. So all the testimony about him staggering and swaying, slurring his words, the calibration of the breathalyzer machine, the certification of the officer who conducted the maintenance, the blood alcohol content, all a waste of your time. Now, having been found guilty as charged, Appellant claims plain error that a police officer testified, without objection, to a 0.08 “legal limit” for DWI. Appellant complains that this encouraged the jury to convict him (his blood alcohol was 0.212) without finding he “was intoxicated, beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “abdicate their responsibility” to determine whether he “was actually intoxicated.” Yet the jury could skip the intoxication element, not on the officer’s word but on Appellant’s own admissions. “When a defendant makes a voluntary judicial admission of fact before a jury, it serves as a substitute for evidence and dispenses with proof of the actual fact and the admission is conclusive on him for the purposes of the case.” State v. Olinger, 396 S.W.2d 617, 621-22 (Mo. 1965). This includes counsel’s admissions in opening statements and closing arguments. State v. Nickels, 598 S.W.3d 626, 638 (Mo.App. 2020); State v. Denzmore, 436 S.W.3d 635, 643 (Mo.App. 2014). 1 We need not reach other good reasons to reject this plain-error complaint. Point denied. Judgment affirmed.

DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. – OPINION AUTHOR NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, P.J. – CONCURS WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J. – CONCURS

1We cannot fathom how Appellant’s brief can tell this court that he “never conceded that he was [in] an intoxicated condition.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD36280 ) BARRY EDWARD GEORGE, ) FILED: August 31, 2020 ) Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHRISTIAN COUNTY Honorable Laura J. Johnson, Judge AFFIRMED At his trial for DWI and trespass, Appellant relied so completely on his § 563.026 justification defense (his passenger’s alleged medical emergency) that Appellant readily and repeatedly admitted his intoxication and drunk driving: • In opening statement, defense counsel admitted Appellant “was intoxicated; he did drive that vehicle.” • Appellant then testified, under his own attorney’s questioning, that he was “drunk at that time” and “knew [he] shouldn’t be driving.” • In closing argument, defense counsel again told jurors that Appellant “doesn’t deny that he was intoxicated. He doesn’t deny that he operated the motor vehicle.” • Finally, also in closing argument, defense counsel chastised the prosecutor for making such a big deal about how drunk [Appellant] was. We never disputed that. So all the testimony about him staggering and swaying, slurring his words, the calibration of the breathalyzer machine, the certification of the officer who conducted the maintenance, the blood alcohol content, all a waste of your time. Now, having been found guilty as charged, Appellant claims plain error that a police officer testified, without objection, to a 0.08 “legal limit” for DWI. Appellant complains that this encouraged the jury to convict him (his blood alcohol was 0.212) without finding he “was intoxicated, beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “abdicate their responsibility” to determine whether he “was actually intoxicated.” Yet the jury could skip the intoxication element, not on the officer’s word but on Appellant’s own admissions. “When a defendant makes a voluntary judicial admission of fact before a jury, it serves as a substitute for evidence and dispenses with proof of the actual fact and the admission is conclusive on him for the purposes of the case.” State v. Olinger, 396 S.W.2d 617, 621-22 (Mo. 1965). This includes counsel’s admissions in opening statements and closing arguments. State v. Nickels, 598 S.W.3d 626, 638 (Mo.App. 2020); State v. Denzmore, 436 S.W.3d 635, 643 (Mo.App. 2014). 1 We need not reach other good reasons to reject this plain-error complaint. Point denied. Judgment affirmed.

DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. – OPINION AUTHOR NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, P.J. – CONCURS WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J. – CONCURS

1We cannot fathom how Appellant’s brief can tell this court that he “never conceded that he was [in] an intoxicated condition.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

STATE OF MISSOURI v. BARRY EDWARD GEORGE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-missouri-v-barry-edward-george-moctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack