matter of plain error in Missouri

2012State v. Mosley, 980 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.App.1998).

2011State v. Mosley, 980 S.W.2d 1 , 3 (Mo.App.1998).

2011Further, “ ‘[t]he question of whether a verdict is coerced is a matter of plain error.’ ” State v. Campbell, 147 S.W.3d 195, 202 (Mo.App.2004) (quoting State v. Burns, 808 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo.App.1991)). “ ‘By definition coercion of a verdict is a matter affecting substantial rights and involves issues of manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Burns, 808 S.W.2d at 2 ).

2011Further, “ ‘[t]he question of whether a verdict is coerced is a matter of plain error.’ ” State v. Campbell, 147 S.W.3d 195, 202 (Mo.App.2004) (quoting State v. Burns, 808 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo.App.1991)). “ ‘By definition coercion of a verdict is a matter affecting substantial rights and involves issues of manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Burns, 808 S.W.2d at 2 ).

1981Defendant’s point is arguable, Millar v. Berg, 316 S.W.2d 499, 502-503 [3] (Mo.1958), but we doubt that, under the present rules, the point is specific enough to point out the particular error asserted.

1974We might, of course, review the submissibility of plaintiff’s case as a matter of plain error, Millar v. Berg, supra, 316 S.W.2d at 502-503 , but we have not been asked to do so, and decline to do so sua sponte.

2015State v. Tokar, 918 S.W.2d 753, 769 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Norman, 178 S.W.3d 556, 560 (Mo.App.W.D.2005).

2015State v. Tokar, 918 S.W.2d 753, 769 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Norman, 178 S.W.3d 556, 560 (Mo.App.W.D.2005).

2012Cf. State v. Cunningham, 193 S.W.3d 774, 781-83 (Mo.App.2006) (finding as a matter of plain error a double jeopardy violation where the state attempted to bring multiple counts based on a defendant’s possession of one "large baggie” that contained 15 individual "baggies” of cocaine; viewing the "large baggie” as a single item of evidence, and rejecting the State's contention that multiple charges could be supported by the smaller "baggies” found within the "large baggie;” finding that there was "nothing to suggest that the legislature intended for multiple punishments for a single act of posse

2012Cf. United States v. Esch, 832 F.2d 531, 542 (10th Cir.1987) (rejecting a defendant’s argument that her indictment was unconstitutionally multiplicitous and her assertion that only one crime occurred where she took multiple sexual photographic images of her two children during one photography session; discussing the allowable "unit of prosecution” at issue when the statute criminalized use of a minor to engage in "any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct,” and concluding that "each use of a minor to create a visual depiction constitutes a

2012Cf. State v. Cunningham, 193 S.W.3d 774, 781-83 (Mo.App.2006) (finding as a matter of plain error a double jeopardy violation where the state attempted to bring multiple counts based on a defendant’s possession of one "large baggie” that contained 15 individual "baggies” of cocaine; viewing the "large baggie” as a single item of evidence, and rejecting the State's contention that multiple charges could be supported by the smaller "baggies” found within the "large baggie;” finding that there was "nothing to suggest that the legislature intended for multiple punishments for a single act of posse

2011Further, “ ‘[t]he question of whether a verdict is coerced is a matter of plain error.’ ” State v. Campbell, 147 S.W.3d 195, 202 (Mo.App.2004) (quoting State v. Burns, 808 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo.App.1991)). “ ‘By definition coercion of a verdict is a matter affecting substantial rights and involves issues of manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Burns, 808 S.W.2d at 2 ).

2010See In re Marriage of Hayes, 12 S.W.3d 767, 770 (Mo.App.2000). 2 .

2005Under our standard of review, we must find that the factfinder’s ruling “is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it shocks this court’s sense of justice and it is clearly against the logic of the surrounding circumstances.” McReynolds v. Mindrup, 108 S.W.3d 662, 665 (Mo.App.W.D.2002), abrogated on other grounds, State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts v. McDonough, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. banc 2003).

2000Although a constitutional claim is waived if not raised at the earliest opportunity, this court will review under the plain error exception “any case in which we can determine from the face of the record that the court had no power to enter the conviction.” State v. Elliott, 987 S.W.2d 418, 420-21 (Mo.App.l999)(citing Hagan v. State, 836 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Mo. banc 1992)). , “The Fifth Amendment, incorporated in and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, ... provides that no one shall be ‘subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ ” State v. Mc

2000Although a constitutional claim is waived if not raised at the earliest opportunity, this court will review under the plain error exception “any case in which we can determine from the face of the record that the court had no power to enter the conviction.” State v. Elliott, 987 S.W.2d 418, 420-21 (Mo.App.l999)(citing Hagan v. State, 836 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Mo. banc 1992)). , “The Fifth Amendment, incorporated in and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, ... provides that no one shall be ‘subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ ” State v. Mc

2000Although a constitutional claim is waived if not raised at the earliest opportunity, this court will review under the plain error exception “any case in which we can determine from the face of the record that the court had no power to enter the conviction.” State v. Elliott, 987 S.W.2d 418, 420-21 (Mo.App.l999)(citing Hagan v. State, 836 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Mo. banc 1992)). , “The Fifth Amendment, incorporated in and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, ... provides that no one shall be ‘subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ ” State v. Mc

2000Although a constitutional claim is waived if not raised at the earliest opportunity, this court will review under the plain error exception “any case in which we can determine from the face of the record that the court had no power to enter the conviction.” State v. Elliott, 987 S.W.2d 418, 420-21 (Mo.App.l999)(citing Hagan v. State, 836 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Mo. banc 1992)). , “The Fifth Amendment, incorporated in and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, ... provides that no one shall be ‘subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ ” State v. Mc

2000Although a constitutional claim is waived if not raised at the earliest opportunity, this court will review under the plain error exception “any case in which we can determine from the face of the record that the court had no power to enter the conviction.” State v. Elliott, 987 S.W.2d 418, 420-21 (Mo.App.l999)(citing Hagan v. State, 836 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Mo. banc 1992)). , “The Fifth Amendment, incorporated in and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, ... provides that no one shall be ‘subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ ” State v. Mc

1999State v. Evans, 895 S.W.2d 637, 638 (Mo.App.

1999State v. Hadley, 815 S.W.2d 422, 423 (Mo. banc 1991).

1998There are no extraordinary circumstances to justify reviewing this argument as a matter of plain error as required by State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 670 (Mo. banc 1995).

1997State v. Pullen, 843 S.W.2d 360, 364 (Mo. banc 1992) cert. denied, 510 U.S. 871 , 114 S.Ct. 200 , 126 L.Ed.2d 158 (1993).

1997Our Supreme Court held in State v. Zindel, 918 S.W.2d 239, 241-244 (Mo. banc 1996) that admission of a defendant’s post-Miranda silence violated defendant’s due process rights and that the violation is reviewable as a matter of plain error.

1997State v. Zindel, 918 S.W.2d at 241-244 .