STATE OF MISSOURI v. CRAIG CARROLL (2026)

OPINION

This case stems from a disturbance in a residential neighborhood in Fenton, Missouri. Witnesses called 911 after seeing appellant Craig Carroll, apparently intoxicated, near the sliding-glass rear entrance of a residence. After Carroll scuffled with the responding deputy sheriff during which he swung three chairs at the deputy, the State charged Carroll with second-degree felony assault and fourth-degree misdemeanor assault.

Carroll now appeals his convictions of both crimes following a jury trial for which he was sentenced to twelve years in prison. In his sole point on appeal, Carroll claims the trial court plainly erred in allowing the State to introduce a demonstrative photograph of a chair that was not sufficiently similar to the chairs Carroll swung at the deputy such that it did not aid the jury in determining the “dangerous instrument” element of the second degree assault. We apply our plain error review rules to Carroll's claim of error because he did not object – in fact, his counsel stated “no objection” – and he did not include the matter in his motion for new trial. And since Carroll has failed to establish facially evident, clear, and obvious error affecting substantial rights, we deny plain error review and affirm.

Background

On September 24, 2021, residents of Winter Valley Drive in Fenton, Missouri called 911 to report a man, later identified as Carroll, exhibiting intoxicated and disruptive behavior. When he arrived, the deputy made contact with Carroll near the back entrance of a home. The deputy noticed Carroll's slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, and his unsteadiness.

Carroll did not respond to the deputy's question whether he had any weapons on his person. Instead, Carroll said, “don't f***ing touch me,” and then tried to walk away. The deputy told Carroll he was not free to go. At that point, Carroll pushed one of the nearby patio chairs into the deputy's path, which he brushed aside. Carroll threw a second chair at the deputy which he kicked aside. Finally, Carroll raised a third chair over his head to strike the deputy but the deputy intercepted the blow by grabbing the chair with his hand and tossing it aside.

The deputy displayed his taser and ordered Carroll to the ground but he refused that command. When the deputy tried to grab his wrist, Carroll tried to flee but the deputy apprehended him nearby. In the ensuing struggle, Carroll kicked the deputy in the face. One of the witnesses helped the deputy subdue Carroll until a second deputy arrived and handcuffed him.

The State charged Carroll with second-degree felony assault and fourth-degree misdemeanor assault and the matter proceeded to trial. During the deputy's testimony about the third chair that Carroll swung at him, the State offered as a demonstrative exhibit a photograph of a chair and the deputy testified it was “similar” or “pretty close” to the actual chair. The chair in the photo was wicker with a flat back, while the chair Carroll swung at the deputy was galvanized metal with a rounded back. Carroll's counsel stated “no objection” so the court admitted the photograph and allowed the State to publish it to the jury. Likewise, Carroll did not challenge the photo's admission in his motion for new trial.

The jury found Carroll guilty on both counts, the court sentenced him to a total of twelve years in prison, and this appeal follows.

Standard of Review

In criminal cases, unpreserved claims of error are reviewed, if at all, for plain error under Rule 30.20. State v. Letica, 356 S.W.3d 157, 169 (Mo. banc 2011). Plain error review is discretionary and used sparingly. Id. at 167.

The appellant must first facially establish substantial grounds for believing the circuit court committed plain error affecting substantial rights resulting in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. State v. Jones, 725 S.W.3d 577, 583-84 (Mo. banc 2025). A plain error is one that is “facially evident, obvious, and clear” such that the circuit court should have recognized it and corrected it. Id. at 583. Unless the appellant makes that threshold showing, an appellate court may decline plain-error review without proceeding further. Id.

Also, by stating “no objection” on the record, the defendant waives the claim of error and this weighs strongly against plain error review. State v. Markham, 63 S.W.3d 701, 707 (Mo. App. 2002).

Discussion

Carroll's plain error review request ¹ centers on the differences between the chair depicted in the demonstrative exhibit and the chair Carroll used during the assault. Carroll asserts that the differences were such that the photo did not accurately represent the dangerous instrument upon which the charges were based. The State argues the photo assisted the jury in understanding the deputy's testimony. We decline plain error review because Carroll has failed to demonstrate how the claimed error was evident, obvious, and clear.

The Supreme Court of Missouri recently clarified plain error review and discussed the five ways appellate courts should analyze unpreserved claims of error under Rule 30.20. Jones, 725 S.W.3d at 583. One of those ways is if appellant has failed to facially establish substantial grounds that the circuit court committed plain error – error that is evident, obvious, and clear that affects substantial rights. Id. An error is “facially evident, obvious, and clear” when the circuit court definitely should have recognized the error. Id.

Demonstrative evidence need not be identical to the object involved in the incident so long as it fairly illustrates the testimony it is offered to explain. See State v. Rios, 234 S.W.3d 412, 428-429 (Mo. App. 2007) (allowing admission of a demonstrative knife where it was consistent with testimony about the defendant's knife and not presented as the actual weapon). There is no absolute rule barring admission of demonstrative evidence of a weapon unconnected with the defendant or with the offense. State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 667 (Mo. banc 1995).

Here, the photograph was used to illustrate the general size and form of the patio chair Carroll swung at the deputy. The State did not claim the photograph depicted the actual chair involved in the incident. Rather, the deputy testified the photograph showed a chair “similar” or “pretty close” to the chair Carroll used. The defense had ample opportunity, which it took advantage of, to highlight on cross-examination the differences between the chair in the photo and the actual chair. The jury's determination of whether Carroll used a dangerous instrument therefore depended on the deputy's testimony describing Carroll's conduct – not on whether the demonstrative photo depicted the same chair.

Likewise, the dissimilarities between the chairs likely inured to Carroll's benefit since the State oddly chose a photograph of a wicker chair which might have seemed to the jury to be less of a “dangerous instrumentality” than the galvanized metal chair described by the deputy. All in all, Carroll has failed to facially establish that the trial court committed error that is evident, obvious, and clear that affected his substantial rights so as to result in manifest injustice. See State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 806 (Mo. banc 2012) (“This Court will not use plain error to impose a sua sponte duty on the trial court to correct Defendant's invited errors.”).

Point denied.

Conclusion

In light of the above, the circuit court's judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Carroll concedes he failed to preserve this claim of error because he did not object at trial — in fact he stated “no objection” — and he did not include the matter in his motion for new trial. Letica, 356 S.W.3d at 167.

James M. Dowd, Judge

Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, Presiding Judge and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Judge, concur.