Thus, informing the jury of a co-defendant's plea during voir dire is probably more damaging than the same statement during opening argument. In State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.App. 1981), during voir dire the prosecutor was attempting to prepare the jury for a co-defendant's appearance as a witness for the state and to determine the effect his plea-bargain would have upon his credibility by disclosing the plea and plea-bargain. 615 S.W.2d at 548. Counsel for defendant objected to the questions asked, but only as to the form and not the substance, with his objection being sustained.
Nothing is preserved for review. State v. Jackson, 511 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Mo. 1974); State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 548 (Mo.App. 1981); State v. Sanders, 577 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Mo.App. 1979). Appellant would still ask this Court to find plain error because the trial court did not of its own motion declare a mistrial.
State v. McGee, 592 S.W.2d 886, 887 (Mo.App. 1980). See also State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.App. 1981). Although there was no eyewitness to the actual breaking, the circumstantial evidence amply supports the conclusion that someone burglarized the laundry building, and that the burglar was appellant.
]" Not only did these comments constitute a general restatement of the law as it is routinely given to juries via court-read instructions, the prosecutor also characterized the statements as predictive of what the panel would hear from the trial court and not the prosecutor. The statements at issue here are not sufficiently dissimilar to those considered in Barnum to justify our deviating from its holding, which we are bound to follow as the latest controlling decision of our supreme court. Mo. Const. art. V section 2; Graham at 838; State v. Phinney, 885 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Mo.App.W.D. 1994); State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550 (Mo.App.E.D. 1981). Accordingly, Appellant's first point is denied.
Under Article V, § 2 of the Missouri Constitution, we are bound to follow the last controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. State v. Phinney, 885 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994); State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981). Accordingly, we are compelled to follow Lindsey with the result that the judgment in Case No. 20538 must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
By that section, we are bound by the last controlling opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri. State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550 (Mo.App. 1981); Babcock v. State, 609 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Mo.App. 1980). Based on Villa-Perez, Movant's first point lacks merit.
We are bound to follow the last controlling opinion of our Supreme Court. Art. V, § 2, Mo. Const.; State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550 (Mo.App. 1981). Point III is without merit.
We are constitutionally bound to follow the last controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Mo. Const. art. V, § 2 (1945); Gunter v. State, 754 S.W.2d 594, 596[3] (Mo.App. 1988); State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550[15] (Mo.App. 1981). Consequently, had appellant's challenges to the constitutionality of the time limitations in Rule 24.035( l) been preserved for our review, we would be constrained by Day to reject them.
State v. Guinan, 732 S.W.2d 174, 178[6] (Mo. banc 1987). Since this Court is bound by the last controlling opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri, State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550[15] (Mo.App. 1981); State v. Jones, 703 S.W.2d 41, 42[1] (Mo.App. 1985), the defendant's argument on this point must fail. In Point V, the defendant challenges the trial court's decision to overrule his objection to the following question asked by the prosecuting attorney:
The trial court is vested with discretion to rule on the admission or exclusion of evidence where the issue is materiality and relevancy, State v. Harlston, 565 S.W.2d 773, 782 (Mo.App. 1978), and in the absence of clear abuse of that discretion, a trial court's ruling to admit or exclude evidence will not be disturbed. State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 549 (Mo.App. 1981). Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to support or establish a fact in issue.