Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court erred by denying Ellis access to the requested documents (an issue we need not and do not decide), Ellis would be unable to demonstrate fundamental unfairness. Ellis acknowledges that his several attempts at trial to discuss V.W.’s behavioral problems and mental history were met with objections by the State, all of which were sustained. [Appellant’s Brief, p. 52] Ellis has not claimed error in the exclusion of this evidence. The denial of discovery on a subject about which no evidence was permitted to be introduced at trial is not fundamentally unfair. Point Three on appeal is denied. Conclusion The trial court’s judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence is affirmed. All concur. 1 . State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624, 632 (Mo. banc 2016) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Mother testified at trial that Ellis
holding that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that an appellate court viewing the evidence and all inferences of fact in light most favorable to nonmoving party can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party holding that in reviewing sufficiency of evidence in juvenile adjudication the appellate court considers the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and affirms if those inferences constitute substantial evidence holding that an appellate court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and grants the state all reasonable inferences holding that in reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict