State of Missouri v. Bruce D. Thompson

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a trial court may not categorically prohibit a criminal defendant from referring in opening statement to exculpatory facts expected to be elicited through cross-examination of State witnesses. The court found an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error, reversed the convictions and sentences, and remanded the case. The dissent would have affirmed because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

Holdings

1. A trial court may not impose an absolute ban on a defendant's reference in opening statement to all facts expected to be established through cross-examination of State witnesses. Cross-examination may establish substantive facts, a defense, or a theory of the case, and a defendant who does not call witnesses retains the right to make an opening statement describing facts the defense expects to prove.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by preventing Thompson's counsel from referring to the intended cross-examination evidence, and the error was prejudicial because there was a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different had the defense been allowed to present an effective opening statement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a criminal defendant may refer in opening statement to facts expected to be established through cross-examination of State witnesses rather than through the defendant's case-in-chief.
2. Whether the trial court's restriction of Thompson's opening statement constituted prejudicial abuse of discretion requiring reversal.
3. Whether the Supreme Court needed to address Thompson's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the State's closing argument.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded