State v. Griffith
237 S.W.3d 242, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1474, 2007 WL 3144976
Opinion
Order
Brock Griffith appeals his convictions of burglary, stealing, and tampering with a motor vehicle. Griffith alleges that the trial court plainly erred by not sua sponte prohibiting the prosecuting attorney from arguing facts not in evidence during closing arguments. Because no facial plain error is evident, we do not grant plain error review.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Griffith, 237 S.W.3d 242, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1474, 2007 WL 3144976 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
237 S.W.3d 242 (State v. Griffith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Griffith
392 S.W.3d 572 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2013)