proof. See, e.g., Lopez-Vizcaino v. Action Bail Bonds, Inc., 3 S.W.3d 891, 893 (Mo.App. 1999) (a search for clear and convincing evidence requires the circuit court to scrutinize the evidence in much closer detail than it does in cases in which the burden of proof is a mere preponderance); A.M.C., 983 S.W.2d at 637. Thus, the trial court erroneously declared the law by requiring Chad to prove his actual damages by clear and convincing evidence. See Blue Pool Farms, LLC v. Basler, 239 S.W.3d 687, 690 (Mo.App.2007). Nothing in the record allows us to say with confidence that the trial court would have found Chad’s evidence of damages insufficient to induce the required level of belief if the proper, lower burden of proof had been used. Therefore, the error was prejudicial. See id. at 691 (<HOLDING>). Point I is granted. That portion of the trial
holding that counsels failure to question the venire regarding the zehr principles did not constitute ineffective assistance where there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different holding that a petitioner must show  that the outcome of his appeal would have been different had counsel raised the issue holding that the outcome of the case could have been different if the trial court had imposed the appropriate burden