Title: Petersen v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC99522
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: November 22, 2022

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
en banc 
KYLE G. PETERSEN, 
) 
) 
Appellant, 
) 
) 
v. 
) 
No. SC99522 
) 
STATE OF MISSOURI, 
) 
) 
Respondent. 
) 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY 
The Honorable Jason R. Brown, Judge 
Following a bench trial, Kyle G. Petersen (hereinafter, “Defendant”) was found 
guilty of driving while intoxicated as a persistent offender.  Section 577.010, RSMo 
Supp. 2017.  The circuit court sentenced Defendant to four years’ imprisonment, 
suspended the execution of the sentence, and placed him on five years’ supervised 
probation. 
Defendant claims the circuit court erred in overruling his pretrial motion to 
suppress and his pretrial motion in limine and allowing testimony of his breath test 
results.  This Court finds no error.  The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.1 
1 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 10 of the Missouri 
Constitution. 
Opinion issued November 22, 2022
2 
 
Factual and Procedural Background 
On September 9, 2018, Missouri Highway Patrol Trooper David Henley 
(hereinafter, “Trooper Henley”) was dispatched to assist Missouri Highway Patrol 
Trooper Thomas Meyer (hereinafter, “Trooper Meyer”) with a motor vehicle crash.  
When Trooper Henley arrived on the scene, he observed a vehicle upside down in a field.  
Trooper Henley concluded, based upon the markings where the vehicle departed the 
roadway, the vehicle did not leave the roadway as a result of a collision with another 
vehicle.   
Trooper Meyer directed Trooper Henley to Defendant, who was handcuffed.  
Trooper Meyer indicated Defendant “appeared to be impaired.”  When Trooper Henley 
approached Defendant, he noticed the strong odor of alcohol on his breath.  Trooper 
Henley observed Defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot, and Defendant had a 
distant stare.  Trooper Henley also stated Defendant’s speech was slurred and he spoke 
very quietly.  Trooper Henley then requested Defendant sit in his police vehicle and 
perform the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (hereinafter, “HGN”) test, which Defendant 
failed.   
Based on his training and experience, Trooper Henley concluded Defendant was 
intoxicated and placed him under arrest.  Trooper Henley sought and received 
Defendant’s consent to provide a breath sample for chemical analysis.  That sample 
revealed Defendant’s blood alcohol content was above the legal limit of “eight-
hundredths of one percent.”  Section 577.012.1(1), RSMo 2016. 
3 
 
Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence.  Defendant requested 
suppression of the results of his breath test, testimony regarding any observations made 
about his impairment while in custody, and the HGN test results.  Following an 
evidentiary hearing, the circuit court sustained Defendant’s motion regarding statements 
he made without the benefit of Miranda2 warnings but overruled the motion regarding all 
other evidence of intoxication. 
On the morning of trial, Defendant filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude 
evidence of intoxication because he had been seized illegally and the breath test was 
administered improperly.  The circuit court overruled his motion.   
The case then proceeded to a bench trial.  Following the introduction of all the 
evidence, the circuit court found Defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated as a 
persistent offender.  Defendant appeals.   
Analysis 
Defendant asserts the circuit court erred in overruling his pretrial motion to 
suppress and his pretrial motion in limine.3  Defendant claims the circuit court erred in 
overruling his motion to suppress because he was physically restrained prior to field and 
                                              
2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 
3 Defendant raised a point on appeal identifying a possible error made by the Southern 
District.  That point fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A) because it does not identify 
a challenged ruling or action made by the circuit court.  “By focusing solely on what he 
argues the court of appeals did correctly, he fails to identify--let alone challenge--any 
error by the [circuit] court.”  Williams v. Hubbard, 455 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Mo. banc 
2015).  However, this Court decides cases on their merits when possible.  Cox v. Kan. 
City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 107, 114 n.4 (Mo. banc 2015).  Hence, this 
Court will analyze whether Defendant preserved his pretrial motions. 
4 
 
chemical testing as well as before the arresting officer made observations of impairment.  
Defendant argues this violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  Further, Defendant 
requests this Court to revisit the long-standing rules delineating preservation of trial error 
for appellate review. 
Objecting to the admission of evidence in a pretrial motion “is not sufficient to 
preserve for appeal any error in failing to exclude it.”  State v. Hughes, 563 S.W.3d 119, 
124 (Mo. banc 2018).  As this Court recently held: 
To preserve a pretrial objection, a party must renew the objection in court 
and make a record that identifies not only the action to which the party is 
objecting but also the legal basis for the objection.  Only an objection made 
timely at trial will preserve an issue for appeal.  
 
State v. Minor, 648 S.W.3d 721, 729 (Mo. banc 2022) (internal citations and quotations 
omitted).  “The objection at trial must be specific, and on appeal, the same grounds must 
be relied upon.”  State v. Tisius, 362 S.W.3d 398, 405 (Mo. banc 2012).  Further, a “claim 
of constitutional error must be raised at the first opportunity and with citation to specific 
constitutional objections.”  Minor, 648 S.W.3d at 729.  “The objection at trial must be 
specific and made contemporaneously with the purported error.”  State v. Driskill, 459 
S.W.3d 412, 426 (Mo. banc 2015).4 
                                              
4 This is in contrast to the federal rules of evidence, which do not require a party to renew 
a pretrial objection at trial when there is a definitive ruling made on the record.  Federal 
Rule 103(b) states, “Once the court rules definitively on the record—either before or at 
trial—a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error 
for appeal.”  However, when practicing in the federal courts, a practitioner should 
recognize the Eighth Circuit “has never defined precisely the bounds of a ‘definitive’ 
ruling.”  United States v. Young, 753 F.3d 757, 775 (8th Cir. 2014). 
 
 
5 
 
A party is required to object at trial to allow the circuit court the opportunity to 
reconsider its “prior ruling against the backdrop of the evidence actually adduced at 
trial.”  Hughes, 563 S.W.3d at 124.  This allows a party to control whether to maintain 
the objection because the party may determine the objection is meritless based upon the 
evidence actually adduced or the party strategically may decide not to object.  State v. 
Yowell, 513 S.W.2d 397, 403 (Mo. banc 1974), superseded on other grounds by section 
542.296, RSMo 1986.  
An appellate court is a court of review, determining whether the circuit court’s 
rulings were correct.  State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 768, 770 (Mo. banc 2011).  
Accordingly, “a party seeking the correction of error must stand or fall on the record 
made in the [circuit] court.”  Id. (quoting State v. Thomas, 969 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Mo. 
App. W.D. 1998)).  An objection presented to the circuit court may not be broadened on 
appeal.   Driskill, 459 S.W.3d at 426. 
At trial, Defendant never raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to the admission 
of his breath test results.  Defendant’s objection to the admission of the breath test was 
that he objected “to it based on previous arguments on lack of foundation and improper 
procedure.”  When Trooper Henley testified about his observations while administering 
the HGN test, defense counsel stated, “Judge, if you could just show my objection during 
this testimony.”  Upon review, it is unknown what foundational element, procedural 
requirement, or other objection was challenged. 
“A ‘general objection of lack of foundation does not call to the court’s attention 
the aspect of the foundation which is considered lacking.  As such it is inadequate to 
6 
 
preserve the matter for review.’”  State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727, 753 (Mo. banc 
2012) (quoting Stewart v. Dir. of Revenue, 702 S.W.2d 472, 476 (Mo. banc 1986)).  
Merely objecting with an unspecified objection or “lack of foundation and improper 
procedure” does not advise the circuit court sufficiently as to the nature of Defendant’s 
objection and the basis for his argument on appeal.  The lack of a specific objection does 
not allow the circuit court to correct any potential error at the earliest opportunity, nor 
does it adequately inform the appellate court as to the precise challenge to the evidence 
being presented.  State v. Loper, 609 S.W.3d 725, 733 (Mo. banc 2020). 
“Generally, this Court does not review unpreserved claims of error.”  State v. 
Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Mo. banc 2020).  “Plain error review is discretionary.”  
Id. at 526.  “[U]nless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for 
believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ this Court will 
decline to exercise its discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.”  State v. 
Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995).  A defendant “bears the burden of 
demonstrating a manifest injustice occurred.”  Loper, 609 S.W.3d at 733.  Because 
Defendant does not request plain error review or present an argument supporting the 
claim of error, he is unable to meet his burden of demonstrating a manifest injustice 
occurred.  This Court’s review of the facts and circumstances in this case fails to reveal 
any circuit court error that was evident, obvious, or clear.   
 
 
7 
 
Conclusion 
The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.  
 
____________________________ 
 
GEORGE W. DRAPER III, Judge 
 
All concur.