Unsolicited statements that are brief and limited in substance do not amount to reversible error in the absence of evidence that the prosecutor intentionally tried to inject unfair prejudice into the trial. See State v. Kalagian, 833 S.W.2d 431, 435 (Mo. App. 1992); State v. Masterson, 733 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Mo. App. 1987). There was no evidence here that the prosecutor intentionally tried to inject this statement into the guilt phase of the trial.
Furthermore, alleged errors committed in closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error rule unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury. State v. Murphy, 592 S.W.2d 727, 732 (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Masterson, 733 S.W.2d 40, 44 (Mo.App. 1987). During closing argument, the prosecutor made no direct references to appellant's failure to testify.
Rule 29.11(f); State v. Masterson, 733 S.W.2d 40, 45 (Mo.App.S.D.1987). All references to rules are to Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure (2006) unless otherwise indicated.
Id. In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, the court considers the following factors: 1) whether the statement was, in fact, voluntary and unresponsive, State v. Masterson, 733 S.W.2d 40, 43 (Mo.App. 1987), or whether the prosecution "deliberately attempted to elicit" the comments, State v. Davis, 825 S.W.2d 948, 953 (Mo.App. 1992); 2) whether the statement was singular and isolated, and whether it was emphasized or magnified by the prosecution, Brasher, 867 S.W.2d at 569; 3) whether the remarks were vague and indefinite, or whether they made specific reference to crimes committed by the accused, Camillo v. State, 757 S.W.2d 234, 241 (Mo.App. 1988); 4) whether the court promptly sustained defense counsel's objection to the statement, Id, and instructed the jury to disregard the volunteered statement, Brasher, 867 S.W.2d at 569; and 5) whether in view of the other evidence presented and the strength of the state's case, it appeared that the comment "played a decisive role in the determination of guilt." Camillo, 757 S.W.2d at 241.
State v. Gilmore, 797 S.W.2d 802, 809 (Mo.App. 1990); State v. Dusso, 760 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Mo.App. 1988). See State v. Masterson, 733 S.W.2d 40, 44-45 (Mo.App. 1987). Here, the State did not fail to disclose any information designated in Defendant's request.
Errors committed during closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error standard unless they are determined to have had a decisive effect on the jury. State v. Masterson, 733 S.W.2d 40, 44 (Mo.App. 1987). A prosecutor is prohibited from expressing to the jury during closing argument his belief that the defendant is guilty in such a manner that the comments imply knowledge of facts not in evidence.
First, the remark concerning appellant's alleged drug use was indefinite as to specific acts. See State v. Masterson, 733 S.W.2d 40, 43 (Mo.App. 1987). Second, no effort was made by the state to magnify or argue the remark.