 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Schneider6/25/2002
aim of plain error does not facially establish substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred, we should decline to exercise our discretion to review a claim of error under Rule 30.20. Brown, 902 S.W.2d at 284. "The rule makes it clear that not all prejudicial error--that is, reversible error--can be deemed plain error." State v. Dowell, 25 S.W.3d 594, 606 (Mo. App. 2000). Plain error is evident, obvious and clear error. State v. Bailey, 839 S.W.2d 657, 661 (Mo. App. 1992).
We do not discern from the face of this record evident, obvious and clear error. Schneider contends that the state failed to produce evidence that the arresting officer had sufficient training in administering the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and that the state failed to establish that the test was administered according to the required procedures. Nothing in the record suggests that the arresting officer may not have had sufficient training or that he did not follow the required procedures in administering the test; therefore, we decline to review the matter under Rule 30.20.
We affirm the circuit court's judgment.
Page 1 2 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|