point as plain error in Missouri

1986Under Rule 30.20, an appellate court has discretion to review a point as plain error when it finds “manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.” “However, this rule is not to be routinely invoked, should be used sparingly, and is limited to causes possessing a strong, clear showing of manifest injustice.” State v. Sammons, 640 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Mo.App.1982).

1984State v. Sammons, 640 S.W.2d 488, 490 [3] (Mo.App.1982).

1976The court may consider statements made in closing argument as plain error, State v. Brown, 528 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Mo.App.1975); State v. McClure, 504 S.W.2d 664, 670 (Mo.App.1974).

1975While the court may consider the issue of statement on closing argument as plain error, State v. McClure, 504 S.W.2d 664, 670 [11] (Mo.App.1974), such a statement will rarely affect the substantial rights of the defendant.

1968See State v. Johnson, supra, and [the] cases there cited.” However, even though defendant’s contention is not preserved for appellate review, we will still consider defendant’s contention on the merits.

1966See State v. Johnson, supra, and cases there cited.

2003State v. Cooper, 673 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Mo.App.1984); Rule 30.20.

1995Plain error is “evident, obvious and clear error,” State v. Bailey, 839 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Mo.App.1992).

1985State v. Tate, 657 S.W.2d 727, 728 [1] (Mo.App.1983).

1985State v. Groves, 646 S.W.2d 82, 83 [2] (Mo. banc 1983).

1984Appellant concedes the point was therefore not preserved for review, State v. Doney, 622 S.W.2d 227, 230 [5] (Mo.App.1981), but urges us to consider the point as plain error under Rule 30.20.

1979Rule 20.02(e); State v. Sykes, 559 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Mo.App.1977).

1976Appellant contends the testimony of State’s witness Pona that he saw Jones and defendant together two days after the robbery was irrelevant, citing State v. Walden, 490 S.W.2d 391, 393 [1] (Mo.App.1973), for the proposition that evidence is relevant if it “ ‘tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue, or to corroborate evidence which is relevant and which bears on the principal issue.’ ” In this as in all criminal cases the State has the burden of proving defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and all elements of the crime including identity of the accused must be shown.

1976In his brief appellant concedes the point was not included in his motion for a new trial and thus had not been preserved for review, Rule 27.20(a), V.A.M.R.; State v. Peterson, 518 S.W.2d 1, 3 [2] (Mo.1974); State v. Henderson, 510 S.W.2d 813, 821 [12] (Mo.App.1974), but seeks consideration of the point as plain error.

1976The court may consider statements made in closing argument as plain error, State v. Brown, 528 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Mo.App.1975); State v. McClure, 504 S.W.2d 664, 670 (Mo.App.1974).

1976In his brief appellant concedes the point was not included in his motion for a new trial and thus had not been preserved for review, Rule 27.20(a), V.A.M.R.; State v. Peterson, 518 S.W.2d 1, 3 [2] (Mo.1974); State v. Henderson, 510 S.W.2d 813, 821 [12] (Mo.App.1974), but seeks consideration of the point as plain error.