State v. O'Banion

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. O'Banion

503 S.W.3d 276, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1114, 2016 WL 6440418

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2016

DocketWD 78672

StatusPublished

This text of 503 S.W.3d 276 (State v. O'Banion) 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. O'Banion, 503 S.W.3d 276, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1114, 2016 WL 6440418 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Finesse O’Banion (O’Banion) appeals from a jury, verdict convicting him of voluntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. O’Banion’s sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling his request for a mistrial when the State, in closing argument, referred to O’Banion’s prior drug convictions as proof of guilt for the charge for which he was on trial. O’Banion argues that the State’s comments violated his rights to due process of law and to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by article 1 sections 10 and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution, in that a prior conviction can only be considered for the purpose of credibility and not as evidence to establish the defendant’s propensity to commit the charged crime. Although the State concedes that its remarks were improper, we find that the trial court’s denial of O’Banion’s motion for a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a . separate memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Finesse O’Banion (O’Banion) appeals from a jury, verdict convicting him of voluntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. O’Banion’s sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling his request for a mistrial when the State, in closing argument, referred to O’Banion’s prior drug convictions as proof of guilt for the charge for which he was on trial. O’Banion argues that the State’s comments violated his rights to due process of law and to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by article 1 sections 10 and 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution, in that a prior conviction can only be considered for the purpose of credibility and not as evidence to establish the defendant’s propensity to commit the charged crime. Although the State concedes that its remarks were improper, we find that the trial court’s denial of O’Banion’s motion for a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a . separate memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 S.W.3d 276, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1114, 2016 WL 6440418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-obanion-moctapp-2016.