State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Aldano F. Loschiavo, Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Aldano F. Loschiavo, Appellant. Case Number: 54721 Handdown Date: 06/23/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cass County, Hon. Joseph P. Dandurand, Judge Counsel for Appellant: David Simpson Counsel for Respondent: Karen Kramer Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Howard, P.J., Breckenridge, and Spinden, J.J. Opinion: ORDER Aldano F. Loschiavo appeals the circuit court's judgment convicting him of first degree robbery, armed criminal action, and rape. He complains in his only point on appeal that the circuit court erred in not declaring, sua sponte, a mistrial because of the prosecuting attorney's alleged improper statements during closing argument. Loschiavo did not object to the argument. We can review the issue only if it is plain error. Rule 30.20. We decline such review because the prosecutor's statements were not plain errorCthat is, error which, from its face, causes us to have a substantial belief that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has resulted. State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031 (1995). Rather than being suggestive of plain error, the statements of which Loschiavo complains are such that our facial examination of them causes us to believe the circuit court would have committed error had it used them as a basis for declaring a mistrial sua sponte. We, therefore, affirm. Rule 30.25(b). Separate Opinion:
None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450