Where a defendant challenged convictions for tampering with a judicial officer, the state presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that the defendant’s conduct of showing his tattoos, which allegedly threatened a prosecutor by name, in a video call was for the purpose of harassing, intimidating or influencing the prosecutor in the performance of her duties, and the trial court did not plainly err by failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial based on evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts because the defendant did not show manifest injustice.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Shultz (MLW No. 80499/Case No. SD37585 – 10 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Gooch, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Scott County, Dolan, J. (Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, and Jeffrey D. McCormick, Kennett, for appellant) (Garrick F.D. Aplin, Jefferson City, for respondent).