Stephanie Maniscalco//July 21, 2016//
Stephanie Maniscalco//July 21, 2016//
Where a defendant in a statutory rape case claimed that a trial court abused its discretion in overruling his counsel’s objection to the state’s cross examination of the defendant as to why the victim would lie, the arguments in defendant’s point on appeal were not the same as the objection lodged at trial, and the defense counsel did not object to the question until after the defendant answered, and no motion to strike was made, so the point is waived, and even though the prosecutor made an incorrect statement at sentencing, the record showed that the sentences were based on valid considerations, so the defendant did not show that the trial court plainly erred in imposing consecutive sentences.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Elam (MLW No. 69375/Case No. SD33905 – 9 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Francis Jr., J.) Appealed from circuit court, Phelps County, Beger, J. (Daniel Neal McPherson, Jefferson City, for respondent) (Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, for appellant).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)