Opinion ID: 2466628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Incidents Occurring During Chase

Text: Bucklew next claims trial court error in admitting evidence of his flight from police and in admitting testimony regarding statements he made during his flight. The statements Bucklew complains ofthat he was not going back to prison and would take as many police officers with him as he could in a shootout with policewere related to the jury through the testimony of Stephanie Ray. Ray's testimony, recounting Bucklew's words during his flight from police, that he did not want to go back to jail drew no objection. The statement that Bucklew was going to take as many police officers with him as he could drew no objection and was not included in Bucklew's motion for a new trial. Similarly, Bucklew's claim of erroneous admission of evidence of his flight from police was not properly preserved. We review for plain error only. Rule 30.20. Bucklew's claims do not, on their face, raise substantial grounds for believing that a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice occurred. Plain error review is therefore not warranted. State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d at 284. The points are procedurally waived.