plain error in Missouri

2019“The plain error rule should be used sparingly and [it] does not justify a review of every alleged trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.” State v. Carr, 50 S.W.3d 848, 853 (Mo.App.2001) (quoting State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo. banc 1990)).

2009Plain error review “should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.” State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo.banc 1990) (quoting, State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983)).

2009Plain error review “should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.” State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo.banc 1990) (quoting, State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983)).

2009Plain error review "should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review." State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo.banc 1990) (quoting, State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983)). *361 Relief should rarely be granted on assertions of plain error as to closing argument because, "in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention." State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907

2001“The plain error rule should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every alleged trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.” State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983); see also State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 670 (Mo. banc 1995).

2001Rule 30.20 provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]hether briefed or not, plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” “ ‘The plain error rule should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every [alleged] trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.’” State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo. banc 1990) (quoting State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983)); see also State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 670 (Mo. banc

2025“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” State v. Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d 519 , 526 (Mo. banc 2020) (quoting State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017)).

2025“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” [Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d at 526] (quoting State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017)).

2025“Plain error is evident, obvious and clear error.” State v. Bailey, 839 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (citation omitted).

2024“Plain error is evident, obvious and clear error.” State v. Bailey, 839 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992).

2012Edwards admits failing to preserve this claim and requests review for plain error. “[A]lleged errors committed in closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error rule unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo. banc 1988).

2010White, 291 S.W.3d at 359 . “[P]lain error will seldom be found in unobjected closing argument.” State v. Kempker, 824 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Mo. banc 1992). “[A]lleged errors committed in closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error rule unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo. banc 1988).

2025Plain error review is a two-step process. 8 First, this Court must determine whether the circuit court’s error was facially “evident, obvious, and clear.” State v. Wood, 580 S.W.3d 566 , 579 (Mo. banc 2019) (quoting State v. Jones, 427 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Mo. banc 2014)).

2025The defendant must show “not only that the trial court committed evident, obvious, and clear error, but also the existence of manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Stuckley, 573 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019) (citing State v. Mueller, 568 S.W.3d 62, 75 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019)). 33 “The plain error rule is to be used sparingly and may not be used to justify a review of every point that has not been otherwise preserved for appellate review.” State v. Jones, 427 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Mo. [banc] 2014).

2024“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995), and Rule 30.20).

2024“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error 2 Defendant and the State both agree that this issue was not preserved for our review and may only be reviewed for plain error. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2024). 2 ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995), and Rule 30.20). . . .

2025Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607 ; see also State v. Varvera, 897 S.W.2d 198, 201 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995) (“Plain error and prejudicial error are not synonymous terms.”). 10 absence of any plain error analysis or attempt to facially establish substantial grounds for manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice by Creekmore, we decline to exercise our discretion to apply plain error review in this case. 5 Even if we were to review for plain error or otherwise reach the merits, Point I would still fail because – assuming arguendo that the State asking the jury to infer that Victim was shot first in the s

2025A plain error is one which is “evident, obvious, and clear.” State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo. banc 2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

2023GOOCH, J. – CONCURS 3 Even under a plain error analysis, “[a] court should rarely grant relief on assertions of plain error as to closing argument.” State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907 (Mo. banc 1988).

2009Plain error review "should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review." State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo.banc 1990) (quoting, State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983)). *361 Relief should rarely be granted on assertions of plain error as to closing argument because, "in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention." State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907

2025State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561, 582 (Mo. banc 2009) (“Plain error review does not apply when a party affirmatively states that it has no objection to evidence an opposing party is attempting to introduce or for a trial strategy reason.”); State v. Hughes, 563 S.W.3d 119, 125 (Mo. banc 2018) (“If a defendant not only fails to object but also states ‘no objection’ or stipulates to the admission of otherwise objectionable evidence, the defendant affirmatively waives any error in its admission, plain or otherwise.”).

2025“Plain error relief is rarely granted for a closing argument claim because withholding an objection to an improper argument is often a strategic decision made by counsel.” State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561, 573 (Mo. banc 2009).

2024“Relief under the plain error rule is granted only when the alleged error so substantially affects the rights of the accused that a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice inexorably results if left uncorrected.” State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 616 (Mo. banc 2009) (quoting State v Hadley, 815 S.W.2d 422, 423 (Mo. banc 1991)).

2021Relief under the plain error rule is granted only when the alleged error so “substantially affects” the rights of the accused that a “manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice inexorably results if left uncorrected.” Id. (quoting State v. Hadley, 815 S.W.2d 422, 423 (Mo. banc 1991)).

1991Prejudice under the plain error rule exists only where the error complained of “impact[s] so substantially upon the rights of [a] defendant that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if left uncorrected.” State v. Driscoll, 711 S.W.2d 512, 515 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 922 , 107 S.Ct. 329 , 93 L.Ed.2d 301 (1986).

1991Under this standard “the plain error complained of must impact so substantially upon the rights of the defendant that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if left uncorrected.” State v. Driscoll, 711 S.W.2d 512, 515 (Mo. banc 1986); Rule 29.12(b).

2019“The plain error rule should be used sparingly and [it] does not justify a review of every alleged trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.” State v. Carr, 50 S.W.3d 848, 853 (Mo.App.2001) (quoting State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo. banc 1990)).

2009Conceding he failed to preserve this issue for appeal, Appellant requests plain error review under Rule 30.20. 9 “ ‘The plain error rule should be used sparingly and [it] does not justify a review of every alleged trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.’ ” State v. Carr, 50 S.W.3d 848, 853 (Mo.App.2001) (quoting State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo. banc 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 , 112 S.Ct. 2222 , 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992).

2024State v. Minor, 648 S.W.3d 721 , 731 (Mo. banc 2022) (quoting Grado v. State, 559 S.W.3d 888, 899-900 (Mo. banc 2018)). “[T]he appellant must show ‘the error was outcome determinative.’” State v. Wood, 580 S.W.3d 566 , 579 (Mo. banc 2019) (quoting State v. Baxter, 204 S.W.3d 650, 652 (Mo. banc 2006)). 3 Unless otherwise noted, all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2023). 3 Analysis In his only point relied on, Defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error by sending the CAC interview to the jury during deliberations.

2024“Plain error can serve as the basis for granting a new trial on direct appeal only if the error was outcome-determinative.” Id. (citing State v. Baxter, 204 S.W.3d 650, 652 (Mo. banc 2006)). 3 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2023), unless otherwise indicated. 4 To submit a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction, a defendant’s second-degree murder jury instruction must include, as an element of second-degree murder, a third paragraph finding that the defendant did not kill under the influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause.

2025Deck explained that the “denial of a plain error claim is not dispositive of the question whether counsel was ineffective in failing to preserve the issue as to which plain error was not found.” 68 S.W.3d at 428 .

2024Although it is true, as the State asserts, that an issue decided on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a post-conviction proceeding on a theory of ineffective assistance of counsel, “denial of a plain error claim is not dispositive of the question whether 9 counsel was ineffective in failing to preserve the issue as to which plain error was not found.” Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 428 (Mo. banc 2002).

2025Moreover, for purposes of plain error review, “[a] verdict directing instruction that omits an essential element rises to the level of plain error if the evidence establishing the omitted element was seriously disputed.” State v. Cooper, 215 S.W.3d 123, 126 (Mo. banc 2007) (citing State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)). “[I]f the evidence establishing the omitted element was not in dispute, the jury’s verdict would not have been affected and no plain error relief need be given.” State v. Harrell, 342 S.W.3d 908, 922 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (quoting Cooper, 215 S.W.3d at 126 ).

2019"Plain error 'is error that is evident, obvious and clear.'" State v. Collins, 150 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004) (quoting State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)).

2019“To be entitled to relief under the plain error rule, a defendant must go beyond a mere showing of demonstrable prejudice to show a manifest injustice affecting substantial rights.” Id., citing State v. Parker, 856 S.W.2d 331, 332 (Mo. banc 1993).

1995To be entitled to relief under the plain error rule, defendant must show the error affected his rights “so substantially that a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected.” State v. Parker, 856 S.W.2d 331, 332-33 (Mo. bane 1993).

2017Indeed, the plain-error rule "should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every alleged trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review." Id.

2015Under Rule 30.20, “plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court[.]” Plain error related to closing argument “mandates reversal only if the error results in manifest injustice.” State v. White, 247 S.W.3d 557, 563 (Mo.App.E.D.2007).

2004See, e.g., State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo. banc 1990), and State v. Guidorzi, 895 S.W.2d 225, 231 (Mo.App.1995). ‘The plain error rule should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every alleged trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.’ State v. Val *168 entine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983), citing State v. Davis, 566 S.W.2d 437, 447 (Mo. banc 1978).” State v. Kirk, 918 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo.App.1996).

1999Rule 30.20 provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]hether briefed or not, plain errors affecting substantial rights may be *586 considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” “ ‘The plain error rule should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.’ State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983), citing, State v. Davis, 566 S.W.2d 437, 447 (Mo. banc 1978).” State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo. banc 1990); see also

1994See State v. Murphy, 592 S.W.2d 727, 732 (Mo. banc 1979) (prosecutor’s reference to the possibility of probation or parole during closing argument did not rise to the level of plain error where the remarks were short and comprised only a small part of the closing argument).

1987Alleged errors on closing argument do not ordinarily justify relief under the plain error standard “unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Murphy, 592 S.W.2d 727, 732 (Mo. banc 1979). “[T]he strength of the state’s case is a prime factor in determining whether the error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Gilmore, 681 S.W.2d 934, 943 (Mo. banc 1984).

2004“Plain error relief as to closing argument should rarely be granted and is generally denied without explanation.” State v. Garner, 14 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Mo.App.1999). “[I]t is well settled that ‘relief should be rarely granted on assertion of plain error to matters contained in closing argument, for trial strategy looms as an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explanation.’ ” State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994) (quoting State v. Wood, 719 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 1986)).

1999Plain error review should rarely be grant *590 ed as to closing argument, “ ‘for trial strategy looms as an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explanation.’ ” State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994) (quoting State v. Wood, 719 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 1986)); see also Wyman, 945 S.W.2d at 77 .

2006For relief under the plain error rule to be-warranted, a defendant must demonstrate “the error so substantially affected the defendant’s rights that a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice would inexorably result if the error were to be left uncorrected.” State v. Deckard, 18 S.W.3d 495, 497 (Mo.App.2000).

2006To be entitled to relief under the plain error rule, a defendant must demonstrate that “the error so substantially affected the defendant’s rights that a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice would inexorably result if the error were to be left uncorrected.” State v. Deckard, 18 S.W.3d 495, 497 (Mo.App.

2020Instructional error rises to the level of plain error “when it is apparent the error affected the verdict.” State v. Hunt, 451 S.W.3d 251, 260 (Mo. banc 2014).

2018First, the reviewing court inquires "whether the claimed error is ... a plain error affecting substantial rights." Hunt , 451 S.W.3d at 260 (internal quotation and citation omitted) (emphasis added).

1984Rule 30.20 provides that “[p]lain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” The Missouri Supreme Court further elaborated on the plain error doctrine in State v. Hurtt, 509 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Mo.1974), wherein it stated: In order to invoke the plain error rule there must be a “sound, substantial manifestation ... a strong, clear showing, that injustice or miscarriage of justice will result if the rule is not invoked.” [citation omitted] ...

1984State v. Hammonds, 651 S.W.2d 537, 539 (Mo.App.1983), cited by defendant sets forth the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on the subject as contained in State v. Hurtt, 509 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Mo.1974): In order to invoke the plain error rule there must be a “sound, substantial manifestation ... a strong, clear showing, that injustice or miscarriage of justice will result if the rule is not invoked.” [citation omitted] ...

2025Moreover, for purposes of plain error review, “[a] verdict directing instruction that omits an essential element rises to the level of plain error if the evidence establishing the omitted element was seriously disputed.” State v. Cooper, 215 S.W.3d 123, 126 (Mo. banc 2007) (citing State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)). “[I]f the evidence establishing the omitted element was not in dispute, the jury’s verdict would not have been affected and no plain error relief need be given.” State v. Harrell, 342 S.W.3d 908, 922 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (quoting Cooper, 215 S.W.3d at 126 ).

2025Moreover, for purposes of plain error review, “[a] verdict directing instruction that omits an essential element rises to the level of plain error if the evidence establishing the omitted element was seriously disputed.” State v. Cooper, 215 S.W.3d 123, 126 (Mo. banc 2007) (citing State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)). “[I]f the evidence establishing the omitted element was not in dispute, the jury’s verdict would not have been affected and no plain error relief need be given.” State v. Harrell, 342 S.W.3d 908, 922 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (quoting Cooper, 215 S.W.3d at 126 ).