State v. Hall

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hall

226 S.W.3d 904, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 938, 2007 WL 1815677

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 2007

DocketNo. WD 66745

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 S.W.3d 904 (State v. Hall) 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. Hall, 226 S.W.3d 904, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 938, 2007 WL 1815677 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Eddie D. Hall appeals the judgment of his conviction, after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, of murder in the first degree, in violation of § 565.020. As a result of his conviction, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

The appellant raises one point on appeal. He claims that the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct, sua, sponte, the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s remark in closing argument that: “The only way [the appellant] can be found not guilty [of murder in the first degree] is if you believe that he was in the house and did not participate in these murders [of Bobby Roby and Angela Ray]; that he had nothing to do with them[,]” because it misstated the law on which the jury was instructed by the court as to what it had to find to convict the appellant of murder in the first degree of Roby, as an accomplice, specifically, as to the proof element that he deliberated on whether to kill Roby.

We affirm, pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Eddie D. Hall appeals the judgment of his conviction, after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, of murder in the first degree, in violation of § 565.020. As a result of his conviction, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

The appellant raises one point on appeal. He claims that the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct, sua, sponte, the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s remark in closing argument that: “The only way [the appellant] can be found not guilty [of murder in the first degree] is if you believe that he was in the house and did not participate in these murders [of Bobby Roby and Angela Ray]; that he had nothing to do with them[,]” because it misstated the law on which the jury was instructed by the court as to what it had to find to convict the appellant of murder in the first degree of Roby, as an accomplice, specifically, as to the proof element that he deliberated on whether to kill Roby.

We affirm, pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 S.W.3d 904, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 938, 2007 WL 1815677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hall-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack