Defendant argues that Loveless' guilty plea was irrelevant to Defendant's guilt, destroyed the presumption of innocence, and improperly tainted Defendant with guilt by association. She's been convicted of two counts of sale of a controlled substance. Defendant did not object to the prosecutor's statement and his allegation of error was not included in his motion for a new trial. Defendant, therefore, requests plain error review. In order to prevail on plain error review, Defendant must show that the trial court's error so substantially violated his rights that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if the error is not corrected.
Manifest injustice is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
A showing of mere prejudice is insufficient. In Taylor, the prosecutor revealed in his opening statement that the State's witness had pled guilty to the same crime with which defendant was charged. On direct examination, the prosecutor further elicited from that witness that, in return for his cooperation in the Taylor case, the prosecutor was recommending that he be sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment outside the State of Missouri. The State's reliance on Borden and Taylor is misplaced based on the record in this case. Here, unlike Borden and Taylor, there is nothing in the record that suggests Loveless' guilty plea was the result of a plea bargain or agreement to testify against Defendant.