Legal Opinion · Concurrence

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MICHAEL LEE HOLT

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 7, 2014No. SD32812Published

1ConcurrenceDaniel E. Scott, J.

Although I think Appellant is arguing § 491.725 only by analogy, the outcome is the same because “this was a matter for the trial court’s exercise of discretion in controlling the proceeding in his courtroom.” State v. Johnson, 485 S.W.2d 106, 117 (Mo.1972). We review for abuse of that discretion, id., and would reverse only if the trial court acted so arbitrarily, unreasonably, and illogically “as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration,” State v. Sanders, 353 S.W.3d 721, 722 (Mo.App.2011), which plainly was not the case. I concur.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1972
  2. State v. SandersMissouri Court of Appeals · 2011