Court Opinion

ID: 9664373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:16:30.898995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:05.336978
License: Public Domain

JOHN E. PARRISH, Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in result.
I concur in Point I and concur in the result reached in Point II. I would not grant plain error review of Point II. As the principal opinion notes, defendant failed to object to the part of the state’s closing argument about which he now complains and, therefore, did not preserve the issue he asserts in Point II for appellate review.
Plain error review “should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.” State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 98 (Mo.banc 1990) (quoting, State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983)). *361Relief should rarely be granted on assertions of plain error as to closing argument because, “in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court’s options are narrowed to uninvited interference with summation and a corresponding increase of error by such intervention.” State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Mo.banc 1988).
State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 670 (Mo. banc 1995).