Court Opinion

ID: 9769848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:04:12.444155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:08.660544
License: Public Domain

SPINDEN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s opinion, but I write separately to express a differing view concerning review of a claim of plain error under Rule 30.20. The majority says, “Plain error encompasses only prejudicial error that so substantially affects the rights of the accused that a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice inexorably results if left uncorrected.” Op. at 77. This is contrary to Rule 30.20’s instruction.
Rule 30.20 says, “Whether briefed or not, plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” The rule, in effect, means that, in cases involving an issue not briefed, we set out to search for manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice only when we are faced with an issue of plain error.
If plain error is error resulting in a manifest injustice, as the majority and numerous other cases have stated, see State v. Parkus, 753 S.W.2d 881, 888 (Mo. banc), cert, denied, 488 U.S. 900 (1988), Rule 30.20, in effect, provides that any error which results in manifest injustice may be reviewed if it results in manifest injustice. This obviously is not logical and is contrary to the plain wording of Rule 30.20 that a court should first look for plain error and, only when it finds it, should the *80court determine whether manifest injustice resulted.
The rule specifically restricts its application to “plain errors.” This means that, in the universe of errors, the rule applies only to those errors which are plain. The Supreme Court made this distinction in State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031 (1995), in which it defined a plain error claim as a claim which “facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted[.]’ ” 1 The Supreme Court reaffirmed this definition in State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 59 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 551, 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998); State v. Johnston, 957 S.W.2d 734, 756 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1171, 140 L.Ed.2d 181 (1998); State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 592 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 711, 139 L.Ed.2d 652 (1998); State v. Clemons, 946 S.W.2d 206, 224 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 416, 139 L.Ed.2d 318 (1997); State v. Simmons, 944 S.W.2d 165, 177 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 376, 139 L.Ed.2d 293 (1997).
This means that plain error review involves a two-step process. Only a claim which, on its face, causes a court to believe that it presents a substantial ground for manifest injustice is cognizable under Rule 30.20. In the absence of such claim, a court should “decline to exercise its discretion” to review it under Rule 30.20. Brown, 902 S.W.2d at 284.
Rule 30.20 necessarily requires that our search for plain error ends with a facial examination of the claim. If we find plain error from such an examination, then the rule authorizes, as a matter of our discretion, a second step: to determine whether the error resulted in manifest injustice. If a facial examination does not reveal plain error, our review should stop.
“Face” refers to “[t]he surface of anything. ... The words of a written paper in their apparent or obvious meaning[.]” BlaCk’s Law DictionaRY 590 (6th ed.1990). If an examination of a claim on its face does not reveal plain error, then the court should refrain from further review, including a determination of whether the purported error resulted in manifest injustice.
This means that not all prejudicial error — that is, reversible error — can be deemed plain error. Our review under Rule 30.20 is restricted to cases involving plain errors, or those which are “evident, obvious, and clear[.]” State v. Bailey, 839 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Mo.App.1992).
The majority, in its determination of whether Francis suffered manifest injustice, granted full review and concluded “that the trial court [did not err] in allowing the prosecutor’s questions on cross-examination about [Francis’] opportunity to hear his brother testify prior to his taking the stand in his own defense.” Op. at-. Instead, it should have ended its review with a rejection of the claim as not involving plain error. See State v. Walker, 972 S.W.2d 623 (Mo.App.1998).

. Emphasis added.