Opinion
No. ED 107367
12-10-2019
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marcus J. GREER, Appellant.
FOR APPELLANT, Carol D. Jansen, Missouri Public Defender’s Office, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203. FOR RESPONDENT, Garrick F. D Aplin, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
FOR APPELLANT, Carol D. Jansen, Missouri Public Defender’s Office, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203.
FOR RESPONDENT, Garrick F. D Aplin, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J. and Lisa P. Page, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM Marcus James Greer ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury verdict of guilty on three counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, one count of third-degree child molestation, and four counts of possession of child pornography. Appellant’s sole point on appeal argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence seventy-four photographs of uncharged alleged child pornography (the "uncharged photographs"). He contends the uncharged photographs were not legally relevant because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. He argues several of the uncharged photographs could not be relevant evidence of "prior criminal acts" under article I, section 18(c) of the Missouri Constitution and, therefore, they have little, if any, probative value. He argues the danger of unfair prejudice due to their admission was high because the jury likely convicted him on a belief he escaped punishment for possessing the uncharged photographs. He also argues he was prejudiced because the State did not publish the uncharged photographs to the jury, inviting them to assume all the uncharged photographs were evidence of "prior criminal acts."
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the uncharged photographs into evidence. A written opinion would have no precedential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(5) (2018).