Criminal Law: Closing Argument – Limitation -Teddy Bear

Listen to this article

(1)Where a defendant in a kidnapping and rape case presented evidence diluting the DNA evidence in the case and questioning the victim’s identification of the defendant, the defendant did not present any evidence from which a jury could infer that his brother committed the charged offenses, so the trial court properly limited the scope of closing argument to prohibit the defendant from specifically arguing that his brother committed the crimes.

(2)Where a trial court allowed a child rape victim to hold a teddy bear while testifying, the court properly balanced the benefit of allowing the comfort item to the 9-year-old child with the potential of prejudice, and the decision did not interfere with the defendant’s strategy of misidentification.

Judgment is affirmed.

State v. Dickson (MLW No. 61983/Case No. SD30159 – 22 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Burrell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Greene County, Cordonnier, J. (Janet M. Thompson, Columbia, for appellant) (Chris Koster and Terrence M. Messonnier, Jefferson City, for respondent).

Click here to read the full opinion.