Id. Generally, evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible unless the evidence tends to establish motive, intent, knowledge, the absence of mistake or accident, common scheme or plan, or identity. State v. Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 867 (Mo.App.W.D. 1993). Here, the state's opening and closing arguments, the testimony of the three officers and the numerous exhibits all relate to the search conducted after Crawford sold cocaine to the undercover agent.
The purpose of expert testimony is to assist the jury in areas which are outside of everyday experience or lay expertise. State v. Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Mo.App. 1993). The amended information charged defendant, acting with another, manufactured, by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, methamphetamine.
Missouri deems reference to the war on drugs as not a per se violation of a defendant's rights. State v. Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 865 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993); State v. Lumpkin, 850 S.W.2d 388, 395 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993); State v. Smith, 849 S.W.2d 677, 681 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993); State v. Hatcher, 835 S.W.2d 340, 346 (Mo.Ct.App. 1992); State v. Williams, 1A1 S.W.2d 635, 638 (Mo.Ct.App. 1988). In State v. Walker, 181 Ariz. 475, 891 P.2d 942, 950 (Ct. App. 1995), the Arizona court ruled that reference to the war on drugs did not constitute misconduct because the prosecutor did not explicitly enlist the jurors to join in the battle.
Accordingly, the motion court did not clearly err by denying relief as to this ground of Amerson's post-conviction motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. State v. Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 865-66 (Mo.App. 1993); State v. Lumpkin, 850 S.W.2d 388, 395-96 (Mo.App. 1993). Because the record conclusively shows that Amerson was not entitled to relief based upon this ground of his motion, Point II is denied.
The statements at issue constituted a plea to the jury to uphold the law and convict those responsible for sexually abusing children in their community. See parallel discussion in State v. Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 866 (Mo.App. 1993). The State's argument here was for society's need for strict law enforcement and the application of their "common sense" as jurors.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the trial court did not plainly err or abuse its discretion. State v. Varvera, 897 S.W.2d 198, 201 (Mo.App.S.D. 1995); State v. Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 867 (Mo.App.W.D. 1993); State v. Woltering, 810 S.W.2d 584, (Mo.App.E.D. 1991). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.
"The essential test of the admissibility of expert testimony is whether such testimony will be helpful to the jury." State v. Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Mo.App.W.D. 1993). "A guiding principle in applying this test is that expert testimony is proper '[i]f the subject is one with which lay jurors are not likely to be conversant. . . . On the other hand, if the subject is one of everyday experience, . . . then opinion testimony is properly rejected.'"
Additionally, the essential test of the admissibility of expert testimony is whether such testimony will be helpful to the jury. Fierstein v. DePaul Health Center, 24 S.W.3d 220, 226 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000); State v. Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Mo.App.W.D. 1993). Here, Merriman's testimony, as reflected in the offer of proof, was not relevant to the victim's behavior because it did not describe behaviors similar to those attributed to the victim by Defendant, and thus would not have helped the jury.
The purpose of expert testimony is to assist the jury in areas which are outside of everyday experience or lay expertise. State v. Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Mo.App. 1993). The amended information charged defendant, acting with another, manufactured, by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, methamphetamine.
An expert's testimony is admissible on those subjects about which the jury lacks experience or knowledge and which will assist the jury, unless it unnecessarily diverts the jury's attention from the relevant issues. State v.Lawhorn, 762 S.W.2d 820, 822-23 (Mo. banc 1988); State v. Taylor, 663 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Mo. banc 1984); State v. Sloan, 912 S.W.2d 592, 596 (Mo. App. 1995); State v Gola, 870 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Mo. App. 1993). It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine the admissibility of expert testimony and we will not reverse unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.