request for plain error in Missouri

2011See State v. Scurlock, 998 S.W.2d 578, 586 (Mo.App.1999).

2006State v. Scurlock, 998 S.W.2d 578, 586 (Mo.App.1999).

2020State v. Campbell, 122 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004).

2013State v. Campbell, 122 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Mo.App.

2006Stanley, 124 S.W.3d at 77 .

2005“A request for plain error review requires us to go through a two-step analysis.” State v. Stanley, 124 S.W.3d 70, 77 (Mo.App.2004).

2015Id.-, Rule 3Ó.20. 2 “This Court will exercise its discretion to conduct plain error review only when the appellant’s request for plain error review establishes facially substantial grounds for believing that the trial court’s error was ‘evident, obvious, and clear,’ and ‘that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’ ” State v. Jones, 427 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo. banc 2007)).

2014This Court will exercise its discretion to conduct plain error review only when the appellant’s request for plain error review establishes facially substantial grounds for believing that the trial court’s error was “evident, obvious, and clear” and “that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.” State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo. banc 2009) (internal quotations omitted).

2021“This Court will exercise its discretion to conduct plain error review only when the appellant’s request for plain error review establishes facially substantial grounds for believing that the trial court’s error was ‘evident, obvious, and clear,’ and ‘that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” State v. Muhammad, 478 S.W.3d 468, 474 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (quoting State v. Jones, 427 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Mo. banc 2014)).

2015Id.-, Rule 3Ó.20. 2 “This Court will exercise its discretion to conduct plain error review only when the appellant’s request for plain error review establishes facially substantial grounds for believing that the trial court’s error was ‘evident, obvious, and clear,’ and ‘that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’ ” State v. Jones, 427 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo. banc 2007)).

2011However, “[w]here, as here, the request for plain error review comes in a direct appeal, we are mindful that plain error cannot serve as a basis for granting Appellant a new trial, as he requests, unless the error was ‘outcome determinative.’ ” State v. Shaffer, 251 S.W.3d 356, 358 (Mo.App.2008) (quoting Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 427 (Mo. banc 2002)).

2008Where, as here, the request for plain error review comes in a direct appeal, we are mindful that plain error cannot serve as a basis for granting Appellant a new trial, as he requests, unless the error was “outcome determinative.” Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 427 (Mo. banc 2002).

2011However, “[w]here, as here, the request for plain error review comes in a direct appeal, we are mindful that plain error cannot serve as a basis for granting Appellant a new trial, as he requests, unless the error was ‘outcome determinative.’ ” State v. Shaffer, 251 S.W.3d 356, 358 (Mo.App.2008) (quoting Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 427 (Mo. banc 2002)).

2009Plain error is “evident, obvious and clear error.” State v. Shaffer, 251 S.W.3d 356, 358 (Mo.App.

2002In State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662 (Mo. banc 1995), the court declined a request for plain error review of a prosecutor s statements in closing argument stating, “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.’ ” Id. at 670 quoting State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc 1988).

1999In State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662 (Mo. banc 1995), the court declined a request for plain error review of a prosecutor’s statements in closing argument stating, “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.’” Id. at 670 quoting State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo. banc 1988).

2002See also State v. Wright, 934 S.W.2d 575, 584-85 (Mo.App.1996).

1999See also State v. Wright, 934 S.W.2d 575, 584-85 (Mo.App.1996).

2013White, 247 S.W.3d at 561 .

2010State v. White, 247 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Mo.App.

2025A request for plain error review regarding a closing argument should “rarely be granted and is generally denied without explanation.” State v. Howell, 441 S.W.3d 217, 218 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014) (quoting State v. Hall, 319 S.W.3d 519, 523 (Mo. App. S.D. 9 2010)).

2025A request for plain error review regarding a closing argument should “rarely be granted and is generally denied without explanation.” State v. Howell, 441 S.W.3d 217, 218 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014) (quoting State v. Hall, 319 S.W.3d 519, 523 (Mo. App. S.D. 9 2010)).

2024Louis, 395 S.W.3d 20, 29 (Mo. banc 2013). 14 Despite the alternative request for plain error review, Baum’s Point V does not identify any error in the form of the instruction.

2021Though “[i]t is improper for counsel to argue questions of law not within the issues, or inconsistent with the instructions of the court,” State v. Holzwarth, 520 S.W.2d 17, 22 (Mo. banc 1975), “appellate courts are loathe to reverse upon this ground alone, unless it appears that the jury was thereby misled or there is some other showing of prejudice to the opposite party.” State v. Brown, 577 S.W.3d 870, 878 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Lewis v. Barnes, 220 S.W. 487 , 489 (Mo. banc 1920)).

2021“This Court will exercise its discretion to conduct plain error review only when the appellant’s request for plain error review establishes facially substantial grounds for believing that the trial court’s error was ‘evident, obvious, and clear,’ and ‘that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” State v. Muhammad, 478 S.W.3d 468, 474 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (quoting State v. Jones, 427 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Mo. banc 2014)).

2021Though “[i]t is improper for counsel to argue questions of law not within the issues, or inconsistent with the instructions of the court,” State v. Holzwarth, 520 S.W.2d 17, 22 (Mo. banc 1975), “appellate courts are loathe to reverse upon this ground alone, unless it appears that the jury was thereby misled or there is some other showing of prejudice to the opposite party.” State v. Brown, 577 S.W.3d 870, 878 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Lewis v. Barnes, 220 S.W. 487 , 489 (Mo. banc 1920)).

2010State v. Campbell, 147 S.W.3d 195, 202 (Mo.App.2004).

2010See State v. Saunders, 318 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Mo.App.

2009State v. Stallings, 158 S.W.3d 310, 315 (Mo.App.2005).

2006State v. Stewart, 113 S.W.3d 245, 248 (Mo.App.

1997State v. White, 782 S.W.2d 461, 465 (Mo.App.1990).

1995In State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d at 537 , our Supreme Court rejected a request for plain error relief in connection with the state’s closing argument that requested the jury to “[sjend the message to everyone who would think about doing it, to everyone who endangers the lives of other citizens everywhere when they’re driving on the highways while intoxicated.” Likewise, in State v. Beal, 840 S.W.2d 881, 882 (Mo.App.S.D.1992), this court found no reversible error in the following argument by the state: “...