State v. Fischer

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Fischer

241 S.W.3d 875, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 20, 2008 WL 73296

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 8, 2008

DocketWD 67722

StatusPublished

This text of 241 S.W.3d 875 (State v. Fischer) 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 v. Fischer, 241 S.W.3d 875, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 20, 2008 WL 73296 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, William Fischer was convicted of one count of deviate sexual assault and sentenced to five years imprisonment. He now appeals that conviction, alleging that several improper comments made by a prospective juror tainted the entire panel and that the State made inappropriate statements during closing argument. Neither of these two points has merit. The trial court did not err in denying Fischer’s request for a mistrial made after the prospective juror’s purportedly improper comments. Moreover, the trial court did not plainly error in failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial during the State’s closing argument. We, therefore, affirm the conviction.

Rule 30.25(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, William Fischer was convicted of one count of deviate sexual assault and sentenced to five years imprisonment. He now appeals that conviction, alleging that several improper comments made by a prospective juror tainted the entire panel and that the State made inappropriate statements during closing argument. Neither of these two points has merit. The trial court did not err in denying Fischer’s request for a mistrial made after the prospective juror’s purportedly improper comments. Moreover, the trial court did not plainly error in failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial during the State’s closing argument. We, therefore, affirm the conviction.

Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.W.3d 875, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 20, 2008 WL 73296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fischer-moctapp-2008.