In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) WD85819 ) V. ) OPINION FILED: ) MARCH 19, 2024 JACOB-CHARLES S. WESTON, ) ) Appellant. )
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri The Honorable William B. Collins, Judge
Before Division Four: Gary D. Witt, Chief Judge, Presiding, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge and W. Page Bellamy, Special Judge
Jacob Charles Weston ("Weston") appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cass
County, Missouri ("trial court"), convicting him, after a jury trial, of four counts of
statutory sodomy in the first degree against two separate victims, section 566.062.1 For
Counts I-III, Weston was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment on each count, and ten
years' imprisonment for Count V, with all sentences ordered to be served consecutively to
each other for a total sentence of 55 years. Weston was acquitted on Count IV, which
charged him with the offense of child molestation in the first degree. Weston raises four
1 All statutory references are to Missouri Revised Statutes (2000), as updated through 2016, unless otherwise noted. points on appeal: Point I, the trial court erred in overruling Weston's motion for
judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove each element of the four sodomy
counts; Point II, the trial court erred in overruling Weston's motion for new trial because
the State's cross examination of him was argumentative and highly prejudicial; Point III,
the trial court erred in overruling Weston's motion for new trial because the State
improperly argued past and future dangerousness in closing argument, which prejudiced
Weston; and Point IV, the trial court erred in overruling Weston's motion for new trial
because the State's errors were cumulatively sufficient to violate Weston's rights to a fair
trial. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
Factual and Procedural Background2
A.W. lived in Missouri with her maternal grandmother, as well as her mother
("Mother"), and her mother's brother, Weston, from 2016 through 2017 when the
offenses against her occurred. A.W. was between four and five years old. While A.W.
stayed with Mother, there were times when Weston was alone with A.W.
During this time period, A.W.'s Mother and father ("Father") were not married and
had no formal custody arrangement, but there was a verbal, mutual agreement between
them.3 For the summer of 2017, Father and Mother agreed that Father would come to
2 "We consider the testimony in a light most favorable to the verdict, and contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded." State v. Haneline, 670 S.W.3d 14, 20 n.3 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (internal citation omitted). 3 In April 2017, there was a court order establishing paternity finding Father to be the biological father of A.W. and establishing child support. Prior to the summer of 2017, there was no litigation regarding custody between Mother and Father. After A.W.'s disclosure, Father filed a custody case in Texas because he was worried about A.W. going back to Missouri, as he was fearful Weston would be around her. In 2018, Mother filed a custody case in Missouri seeking 2 Missouri to get A.W. and bring her back to his home in Texas. During Father's parenting
time, A.W. saw Father changing his infant son's diaper. A.W. pointed to the infant's
private area and asked what it was. Father stated the infant son, "has a wiener" and A.W.
replied, "Like my Uncle [Weston]." Father asked A.W. why she would say that and
A.W. disclosed she saw Weston's penis. At the time of the disclosure A.W. was five
years old. Father called Mother to tell her what A.W. said. Following that conversation
Father called the Division of Family Services in Texas, and Mother called the Children's
Division in Missouri to make reports of A.W.'s disclosure. The next day, Father took
A.W. to the Alliance for Children in Fort Worth, Texas, for a videotaped forensic
interview. During the interview, A.W. said Weston made her "touch his no no" and he
wanted A.W. to "lick it" and if she did, Weston would then give her a treat.4 The forensic
interviewer asked A.W. clarifying questions and A.W. confirmed Weston wanted her to
"lick" his penis with her tongue, and put it inside her mouth. A.W. also disclosed that
Weston told her he was going to "lick" A.W.'s "no-no" and that he did. A.W. told the
interviewer that after both incidents, Weston told her to keep it a secret.
After the forensic interview, A.W. was taken to Cook Children's Hospital in Fort
Worth, Texas, for a sexual assault examination. During the exam, A.W. told the forensic
nurse that Weston had touched her and she pointed to her genitals, breasts, and buttocks.
A.W. also indicated Weston touched her vagina with his finger. A.W. told the nurse she
to have A.W. return to Missouri to live with her. In May 2022, Father voluntarily brought A.W. back to Missouri to live with Mother. 4 Throughout A.W.'s forensic interview, she described male and female genitalia as the "no no" spot. 3 had to touch Weston and demonstrated how she had to make a fist and move it up and
down, "Like this." The forensic nurse did not find any physical signs of sexual abuse.
In December 2017, a detective with the Belton Police Department began to review
A.W.'s forensic interview and her medical records as part of an investigation into her
abuse. While investigating A.W.'s allegations of abuse, an additional investigation was
started involving another potential victim, N.C.
Between 2010 and 2011, N.C.'s mother was dating Mother's other brother
("Boyfriend"). During that time period, Boyfriend lived in Cass County, Missouri, and
hosted a family gathering where both N.C. and Weston were present. At the time of the
family gathering, N.C. was roughly four years old. During the event, Boyfriend went
downstairs to find Weston and saw Weston and N.C. under a blanket. N.C. quickly
popped out from under the blanket, near Weston's knees. Both N.C. and Weston were
fully clothed. Boyfriend was concerned at what he saw, and informed N.C.'s mother.
After finding them, Boyfriend asked N.C. if anything happened between her and Weston,
and she said no. N.C.'s mother also asked N.C. if anything happened, to which N.C.
replied no.
In 2020, Mother contacted N.C.'s mother and told her about the incident between
A.W. and Weston. Mother also spoke with N.C.'s mother about the situation that
happened with N.C. and Weston at the family gathering nearly ten years prior. N.C.'s
mother was then contacted by the detective, and she spoke with him about the incident
with N.C. and Weston. Subsequently, N.C.'s mother asked N.C., who was then fifteen
years old, if anything happened to her at the family gathering at Boyfriend's place. When
4 asked, N.C. closed down and did not respond. Nearly a week later, N.C.'s mother asked
again and N.C. said Weston touched her "private parts" over her clothing.
After N.C.'s disclosure to her mother, N.C. was taken to the Child Protection
Center in Kansas City, Missouri for a videotaped forensic interview. During the
interview N.C. said while she was at Boyfriend's house, Weston touched her "lower part"
on the skin with his hand.5
On August 26, 2021, Weston was indicted on five counts. Counts I, II, and III
charged that Weston committed the offense of statutory sodomy in the first degree
against A.W. Count V charged that Weston committed the offense of statutory sodomy
in the first degree against N.C. Count IV charged that Weston committed the offense of
child molestation in the first degree against A.W.
The jury trial began on August 29, 2022. A.W. testified at trial. A.W. testified
she did not remember telling Father that something happened with Weston. A.W. said
Weston never touched her, but that Weston made A.W. touch him when she was alone
with him in Weston's room. A.W. testified Weston made her "lick his bad part" in order
for her to get candy. A.W. stated she touched Weston's "bad spot" with her tongue, but
she could not remember what position she was in when it happened. A.W. did not
remember talking to the forensic interviewer and nurse about Weston touching her.
When asked if she was telling the truth during the forensic interview, A.W. stated she
"said wrong" and that she "probably just didn't understand." A.W. clarified that Weston
5 N.C. referred to her vagina as the "lower part." 5 made A.W. put her tongue on his "bad spot" twice in the same day, but A.W. stated she
could not do it the second time.
N.C. also testified at trial. N.C. testified about a time between 2010 and 2011
where she was at Boyfriend's house. N.C. stated she was laying down and Weston came
in at one point. Weston and N.C. had gotten under the covers and Weston began
touching N.C.'s vaginal area, under her clothes. N.C. did not remember Boyfriend
coming downstairs during the incident, and she did not remember Boyfriend asking her if
anything happened. N.C. never told anyone about the incident until her mother asked her
about it in 2020. N.C. stated she originally told her mother that Weston touched her over
the clothes and not under the clothes because she "didn't want [her mother] to be scared."
N.C. testified she heard about an incident involving A.W. and Weston.
At the close of the State's evidence, Weston made an oral motion for judgment of
acquittal based upon insufficiency of the evidence, which the trial court denied. At the
close of all of the evidence, Weston renewed his motion for acquittal, which the trial
court denied. The jury found Weston guilty on Counts I, II, III, and V, and not guilty on
Count IV. Weston waived jury sentencing prior to trial. At the sentencing hearing,
Weston filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. The trial court sentenced Weston
to fifteen years' imprisonment for Counts I-III, and ten years' imprisonment for Count V,
with each count to run consecutively for a total sentence of 55 years. This appeal
follows.
6 Sufficiency of the Evidence
Standard of Review
In Point I, Weston claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion for
judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove each element of the four sodomy
counts because the evidence produced at trial was "legally and substantially inconsistent"
to support each charged count, violating Weston's rights to due process and a fair trial.
“The review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is the same as
reviewing a claim that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the
charged offense.” State v. Dodd, 637 S.W.3d 659, 666 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). On
review, we are limited to a determination of “whether there was sufficient evidence from
which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.” State v. Zetina-Torres, 482 S.W.3d 801, 806 (Mo. banc 2016) (internal citation
omitted). This Court will not re-weigh the evidence presented at trial; rather, “we accept
as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences that
support the verdict, and ignore all contrary evidence and inferences.” State v. Gehring,
599 S.W.3d 526, 529 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
7 Analysis
We begin by noting Weston's first point on appeal is multifarious, violating Rule
84.04.6 Weston challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support each of his four
convictions committed against two different victims at different times. "Multiple claims
of error in one point relied on renders the point multifarious and as such is a violation of
Rule 84.04, made applicable to briefs in criminal appeals by Rule 30.06(c)." State v.
Leonard, 490 S.W.3d 730, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (internal citation omitted).
Multifarious points generally, "preserve nothing for appellate review and are ordinarily
subject to dismissal." State v. Putfark, 651 S.W.3d 869, 879 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022)
(internal citation omitted). Despite this violation, we exercise our discretion to review
Point I on the merits as Weston's argument is readily understandable. See State v. Glaze,
611 S.W.3d 789, 794 n.6 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020).
As for Counts I-III Weston alleges the State: failed to prove Weston had A.W.
place her mouth on Weston’s penis, Count I; failed to prove Weston placed his mouth on
A.W.’s vagina, Count II; and failed to prove that Weston had A.W. touch Weston’s penis
with her hand, Count III. Weston points to inconsistencies between A.W.’s initial
disclosure to her father, her disclosures during the sexual assault exam, disclosures in her
forensic interview, and her subsequent trial testimony. Weston claims A.W.’s disclosures
were grossly inconsistent and contradictory over time. Weston argued before the jury
and argues now that A.W.'s allegations stem from a custody battle between Father and
6 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2023), unless otherwise noted. 8 Mother, noting the initial disclosures were made while A.W. was with Father and the
story changed dramatically “to not much of anything happened other than one alleged
incident” once A.W. was with Mother.
As for Count V, Weston argues the State failed to prove Weston touched N.C.’s
vagina with his hand. Weston argues the evidence concerning N.C. was grossly
inconsistent and contradictory. Weston points to how N.C. denied that anything
happened immediately after the alleged incident and that the incident was only brought
up again when Mother told N.C.'s mother about what happened to A.W. Further, Weston
claims N.C. made a disclosure only after repeated questioning, and thereafter her story
changed from Weston touching her vagina over her clothes to under her clothes. Finally,
Weston points to N.C.'s disclosure occurring nearly ten years after the incident that
occurred when she was only four years old.
Weston is essentially asking this Court to re-weigh the evidence presented at trial,
which we cannot do under our standard of review. See Gehring, 599 S.W.3d at 530.
Weston argues the lack of physical evidence, combined with the "wildly shifting
statements by the two alleged victims . . . would necessarily lead any reasonable juror to
conclude the State had not proven its case on any of the charged and convicted counts."7
We disagree.
7 Weston asserts he is not asking this Court to apply the Corroboration Rule and/or the Destructive Contradictions Doctrine. Weston's argument, however, suggests this Court do exactly that. Essentially Weston is asserting that because the victims' testimonies are so inconsistent, and they cannot be corroborated due to lack of physical evidence, the judgment cannot stand. Our Supreme Court has abolished both rules, and "Missouri law long has 9 It is well established that the "testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support
a conviction even if the testimony of the witness is inconsistent." See Dodd, 637 S.W.3d
at 668 (internal quotation omitted). "As the trier of fact, the jury is the sole arbiter of
witness credibility, and it is free to believe or disbelieve all, part, or none of any witness's
testimony." State v. Ferguson, 568 S.W.3d 533, 540 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). Further,
"the trier of fact is generally in the best position to resolve inconsistent testimony by the
child victim of a sex crime." State v. Porter, 439 S.W.3d 208, 214 (Mo. banc 2014).
Here, the evidence supports the convictions of each of the charged offenses. As
for Count I, the jury found Weston had A.W. place her mouth on his penis. At trial,
Father and forensic interviewer testified that A.W. stated Weston made her "lick" his
penis. A.W.'s videotaped interview with these disclosures was admitted at trial. Further,
A.W. testified at trial that Weston made her "lick his bad part."
As for Count II, the jury found that Weston placed his mouth on A.W.'s vagina.
During the forensic interview, A.W. told the interviewer that Weston told A.W. he was
going to "lick" her "no-no" and that he did.
As for Count III, the jury found Weston had A.W. place her hand on his penis. At
trial, the forensic nurse testified that during A.W.'s sexual assault exam, A.W. disclosed
that Weston made her touch his penis and A.W. demonstrated the movement by moving
her fist up and down.
recognized that [trial] judges and juries are in a superior position to resolve factual disputes." See State v. Porter, 439 S.W.3d 208, 211-13 (Mo. banc 2014). 10 Finally, for Count V, the jury found Weston touched N.C.'s vagina with his hand.
At trial, N.C. testified about Weston touching her vaginal area, under her clothes. N.C.'s
mother also testified about N.C.'s disclosures of the incident, and N.C.'s videotaped
forensic interview describing Weston's conduct was admitted at trial.
Any inconsistencies between the victims' statements creating possible credibility
issues were left for the jury to resolve. At trial Weston thoroughly raised the
inconsistencies of the victims' disclosures and discussed them at length in his closing
argument. Further, Weston cross-examined Mother and Father about their custody
arrangement for A.W. and told the jury this case arose from their "ongoing custody
battle." The jury was well aware of all the inconsistencies and credibility issues Weston
raises on appeal, and the jury was in the best position to resolve these issues. See Porter,
439 S.W.3d at 214. We will not second-guess the credibility determinations of the jury.
See Dodd, 637 S.W.3d at 668. Therefore, we find there was sufficient evidence to
support each count and thus, the trial court did not err in overruling Weston's motion for
judgment of acquittal.
Point I is denied.
Cross Examination
In Point II, Weston claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new
trial because the State’s cross examination of Weston was argumentative and highly
prejudicial, violating Weston’s right to due process. "To properly preserve a matter for
appellate review, the trial objection must be specific, and the point raised on appeal must
11 be based upon the same theory presented at trial.” State v. Goins, 306 S.W.3d 639, 646-
47 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (internal quotation omitted). “The standard of review for
preserved error in cross-examination is that of an abuse of discretion." State v. Dewey,
86 S.W.3d 434, 439 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (internal citation omitted). A trial court
abuses its discretion "when its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and
is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration." State v. Peirano¸ 540
S.W.3d 523, 527 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018). In the absence of an objection to evidence at
trial, this Court may exercise its discretion and review a matter for plain error. Rule
30.20; State v. Minor, 648 S.W.3d 721, 729 (Mo. banc 2022).
Plain error review is a two-step process:
The first step requires a determination of whether the claim of error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted. All prejudicial error, however, is not plain error, and plain errors are those which are evident, obvious, and clear. If plain error is found, the court then must proceed to the second step and determine whether the claimed error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.
Minor, 648 S.W.3d at 731.
Analysis
Weston testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. The relevant
portions of the State's cross-examination of Weston was as follows:
[State]: Okay. And you're on trial today for what you did to [N.C.] because you put your hand down her pants and touched her vagina.
[Weston]: Absolutely not.
[State]: And I know that you're going to deny that because, quite frankly, that's the only thing you can do right now.
12 [Weston's Counsel]: Your Honor, objection. Argumentative.
[State]: It's cross-exam.
[Trial Court] It's cross-examination. Overruled.
[State]: That's the only thing that you can do right now; right, [Weston]?
[Weston]: I mean, I'm up here testifying in my own defense. So yes, I'm denying it.
[State]: Yes. And what's really interesting -- what is really interesting is your defense attorney started their opening statement by talking about motive and opportunity; right? You remember your defense attorney talking about that?
[Weston] Yes.
[State]: About who has motive and opportunity in this case.
[Weston]: Correct.
[State]: And you're a smart enough guy to realize that the number one person that has motive and opportunity to lie about this is you. You're smart enough to realize that; aren't you?
[Weston]: Oh, sorry. You wanted me to answer?
[State]: Yeah.
[Weston]: I mean, I don't -- I don't think that that's the case here, you know. I definitely don't think I have the most motive and opportunity in this case.
[State]: You're the only person that has that motive and opportunity.
[Weston]: That's not correct, ma'am. (emphasis added.)
Later during cross-examination, the State questioned Weston about Boyfriend
finding him under a blanket with N.C. The following conversation took place:
13 [State]: And [Boyfriend] decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and just say, "I don't think this happened;" right?
[Weston]: Right.
[State]: And the reality is, maybe if things had been handled a little bit differently, maybe if he had confronted you back then, maybe you wouldn't have had access to [A.W.] like you did.
[Weston's Counsel]: Is that a question, Your Honor?
[State]: I'll move on.
[State]: And the reality is, because [Boyfriend] didn't confront you about you being under a blanket with [N.C.], because he didn't confront you about what he knew had probably happened and he was concerned about, [A.W.] became a victim; didn't she?
[Weston]: No, ma'am. (emphasis added.)
Finally, the State questioned Weston about where he lived during the time period
the incident with A.W. took place. The following conversation occurred:
[State]: You had a room right next to [Mother's] room, and that's where --
[State]: -- your residence was; right?
[Weston] Not that entire timeframe, no, so.
[State]: And you went through that.
[Weston] Right.
[State] You joined the Air Force, and --
[State]: -- you must've gotten kicked out of the Air Force. You lived at your girlfriend's. But the reality is, we can all agree on this. You lived in that
14 residence for a period of time at the same time that little [A.W.] lived there; right?
[Weston]: Correct. (emphasis added.)
Only one portion of the State's cross-examination of Weston at issue herein was
properly objected to and preserved for our review. Weston argues the State's comment,
"And I know that you're going to deny that because, quite frankly, that's the only thing
you can do right now [,]" was argumentative, opinion-oriented, and improperly
prejudicial, all of which invades the jury's province as to the question of guilt before it.
While we agree the State's comment is argumentative, "[t]rial courts retain broad
discretion in deciding the permissible scope of cross-examination, and an appellate court
will not reverse a conviction absent an abuse of that discretion." State v. Taylor, 134
S.W.3d 21, 25 (Mo. banc 2004). Thus, to be entitled to relief, Weston "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. Emerson, 573 S.W.3d 93, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (internal citation and
quotation omitted).
Weston has failed to show he was prejudiced by the trial court's error. Weston
merely asserts the State's questioning likely resulted in prejudicing the jury against
Weston; however, at trial, there was substantial evidence against Weston. As discussed
in Point I, A.W. and N.C. testified about how Weston sexually abused them, other
witnesses testified about A.W.'s and N.C.'s disclosures of Weston's abuse, and video
evidence of A.W.'s and N.C.'s forensic interviews was admitted at trial. Thus, Weston
15 has failed show there was a reasonable probability that the outcome at trial would have
been different had the State's questioning not occurred.
We review the remaining challenged portions of the State's cross-examination for
plain error, under Rule 30.20, because Weston failed to object to those questions at trial.8
See Minor, 648 S.W.3d at 731. Again, Weston merely provides us with a conclusory
statement that the State's cross-examination likely resulted in prejudicing the jury against
him.9 Because we have already determined there was no abuse of discretion creating
prejudice, we decline to engage in plain error review. See State v. Martin, 661 S.W.3d
337, 341 n.4 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023) ("Abuse of discretion is a lower standard of
prejudicial error than plain error and, therefore, a finding of no abuse of discretion will
preclude a finding of plain error."). Therefore, we find the trial court did not plainly err
in overruling his motion for new trial.
Point II is denied.
8 Weston argues it would have been futile to continue to object to the State's questioning because "[i]t was clear from the trial court's decision in overruling the objection that the trial court was going to continue to allow the prosecutor to proceed . . . when the trial court replied to the objection with 'its cross-examination.'" Weston asserts any further attempts at objecting to the State's cross-examination was not required, citing to Longshore v. City of St. Louis, 699 S.W.2d 16, (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). Unlike in Longshore, where the plaintiff objected on relevancy grounds each time specific testimony was elicited at trial, Weston only made one objection on cross-examination. Id. at 18 (holding it was not necessary for plaintiff to continue to object when the trial court's position on the relevance of the evidence was evident). We cannot conclude the trial court's decision in overruling one objection made it evident the trial court would let all subsequent questions in if they were properly objected to. 9 We are concerned about the State's statement during the cross-examination "you must've gotten kicked out of the Air Force," which was completely unsupported by any evidence in the trial and has no relevance to any issue in the trial. However, the State did not further address this during the trial or mention it in its closing argument. 16 Closing Argument
In Point III, Weston claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new
trial because the State improperly argued past and future dangerousness in closing
argument, thereby prejudicing defendant in violation of Weston’s right to due process.
Weston failed to object during either the State’s closing argument or its rebuttal
argument, so this issue is not preserved and we may only review for plain error under
Rule 30.20. See Minor, 648 S.W.3d at 731.
Analysis Weston argues part of the State's closing argument included an improper past and
future dangerousness argument. During the State's closing argument, the State stated,
"The defendant touched [N.C.]'s vagina under her pants when she was 4 years old.
[Boyfriend], who took the stand, said when he caught them under the blankets, he was
concerned. He was worried about it. Had the defendant been stopped then, maybe we
wouldn't be here." The State also told the jury to "End his manipulation today." Weston
argues he was improperly and unlawfully prejudiced by the State's direct and indirect
references to Weston being a predator and inferentially urging the jury to find him guilty
to prevent him from committing any similar conduct in the future. We disagree.
"Plain error relief as to closing argument should rarely be granted and is generally
denied without explanation. This is because the absence of an objection during
arguments means that any trial court intervention would be uninvited and may cause
increased error." State v. Barton, 552 S.W.3d 583, 589 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (internal
17 citations and quotations omitted). "Plain error review also requires that the argument
have a decisive effect on the jury's determination." State v. Shurn, 866 S.W.2d 447, 460
(Mo. banc 1993). The trial judge has no way of discerning if the defense has a strategic
reason for failing to object to a particular comment by the State in closing argument and
if the trial judge acts sua sponte, it may interfere with that defense strategy. See State v.
Clay, 975 S.W.2d 121, 134 (Mo. banc 1998).
The State's call to the jury to "End his manipulation today," can be construed as a
plea to uphold the law and protect other children, and thus, is not improper.10 However,
the State's argument that had Weston been stopped after the incident with N.C. occurred,
"maybe we wouldn't be here", was improper because the argument sought to induce the
jury to act on passion. See State v. Dominguez-Rodriguez, 471 S.W.3d 337, 350 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2015) ("A prosecuting attorney should not inflame the passions or prejudices
of the jury against a defendant."). While we find this comment to be improper, we must
look at the entire record to determine if the State's comment amounts to plain error. State
v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 543 (Mo. banc 2010).
10 In a variety of cases, our Courts have concluded the State has not improperly argued future dangerousness in its closing. See State v. Blue, 655 S.W.3d 396, 401-02 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022) (holding State's argument to the jury that they were "the only people who can keep [her] safe and keep other children like her safe from a guy like [defendant]" was proper); State v. Fisher, 575 S.W.3d 508, 512-14 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019) (holding State's argument, "Is he held responsible or does he get up out of that chair, walk out that door to this community to do again what he's done?" did not merit relief under plain error review); Jones v. State, 389 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (holding State's closing argument referring to defendant as a "predator" and the victims as "perfect prey" was proper as the State was asking the jury to send a message that the community will not tolerate such conduct). 18 Weston has failed to show these statements during closing argument prejudiced
him because there is no basis to conclude the statements had a decisive effect. See State
v. Fisher, 575 S.W.3d 508, 513 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019) ("[T]here must exist a reasonable
probability that in the absence of the statement at issue, the verdict would have been
different."). As discussed in Point I and Point II, there was overwhelming evidence
against Weston. Therefore, no manifest injustice resulted, and the trial court did not
plainly err in overruling Weston's motion for new trial on this basis. Point III is denied.
Cumulative Error
Weston's fourth and final point on appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling
his motion for new trial because the State's errors were cumulatively sufficient to violate
Weston's rights to due process and a fair trial. "An appellate court may grant a new trial
based on the cumulative effects of errors, even without a specific finding that any single
error would constitute grounds for a new trial." Hurley v. Burton, 626 S.W.3d 810, 827-
28 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (internal citation omitted). We will not grant relief, however,
"when there is no showing that prejudice resulted from any rulings of the trial court." Id.
at 828.
As previously discussed, Weston has failed to persuasively identify any prejudicial
error during the trial, and therefore the point must fail. See id. Point IV is denied.
19 Conclusion
For the above stated reasons, we affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial
court.
__________________________________ Gary D. Witt, Chief Judge, Presiding
All concur