Opinion ID: 1512200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Suppress Statements in Patrol Car

Text: Next, Fuente argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress any statements he made in response to Trooper Munden's question in the patrol car, What will the canine unit find? Fuente contends his response that they will find a pipe and a little baggie was obtained in violation of Miranda. Fuente failed to properly raise this issue in the Court of Appeals, Western District, or in this Court. Fuente merely mentions his argument in the discussion section of other arguments contained in his brief to this Court and to the Western District. This issue is not raised in any point relied on in any of his briefs. This Court's review is limited to matters raised in the points relied on. State v. Gooch, 831 S.W.2d 277, 277 (Mo.App.S.D.1992). Therefore, we will review for plain error and determine if manifest injustice occurred. We find no manifest injustice in the trial court having overruled Fuente's motion to suppress the statements in the patrol car. To be manifest injustice, the error and the injustice resulting therefrom must be apparent. An error is only an injustice if it is prejudicial. Here, the alleged error is not apparent, because it is not clear that the detention of Fuente had risen to the level of custody plus interrogation. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Furthermore, even if the evidence was clearly inadmissible, it is not apparent that its admission was prejudicial because there was ample other evidence for the trial court to find Fuente guilty of possession of marijuana. Therefore, there is no way Fuente could have been prejudiced by the admission of these statements. The trial court's decision to admit Fuente's statements in the patrol car does not rise to the level of plain error. This point is denied.