Opinion ID: 6108019
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Submitting Instructions on Felony Murder

Text: In his second point on appeal, Oates argues the circuit court erred in submitting instructions on felony murder for the second-degree murder counts. Relying on several state and federal constitutional provisions, Oates argues submitting the felony-murder instructions violated his constitutional rights to due process and to be tried for the offenses for which he was  charged in that he was indicted only on conventional murder for the second-degree murder counts, and felony murder is not an included offense of conventional murder. When the State filed a notice of intention to submit felony murder as an alternative to conventional murder, Oates filed a motion to strike the notice. Oates' motion to strike, however, did not invoke any of the constitutional provisions on which he now relies. To preserve a constitutional claim of error, the claim must be raised at the first opportunity with citation to specific constitutional sections. State v. Driskill , 459 S.W.3d 412 , 426 (Mo. banc 2015). If not raised at the first opportunity in the circuit court, a constitutional claim is waived and cannot be raised here. State v. Fassero , 256 S.W.3d 109 , 117 (Mo. banc 2008). Oates' unpreserved constitutional claim is subject to discretionary review only for plain error. See Driskill , 459 S.W.3d at 426 . With plain-error review, the defendant bears the burden of establishing manifest injustice. State v. Baxter , 204 S.W.3d 650 , 652 (Mo. banc 2006). As Oates does not even request plain-error review, he has made no attempt to carry this burden. Furthermore, Oates was provided notice of the State's intention to pursue felony murder before trial. Therefore, Oates had the opportunity to prepare a proper defense and was not prejudiced. See State v. Blankenship , 830 S.W.2d 1 , 13 (Mo. banc 1992) ; State v. Hendren , 524 S.W.3d 76 , 82-83 (Mo. App. 2017). Point II is denied.