Where a defendant in a child-molestation case argued that the trial court plainly erred in failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte after the prosecutor made a statement in closing argument that speculated about the possibility that the defendant might commit similar acts in the future, the statement could be interpreted as supporting the lawful goal of protecting children from sexual predation, and the defendant did not show that the statement had a decisive effect because there was overwhelming evidence against him.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Fisher (MLW No. 73345/Case No SD35506 – 9 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Sheffield, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Iron County, Parker, J.