STATE OF MISSOURI v. MARK LOVE (2026)

Introduction

A Montgomery County jury convicted Mark A. Love of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (count one), violating section 579.015, resisting a stop by fleeing - creating a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death (count two), violating section 575.150 and driving while license revoked (count three), violating section 302.321. Love raises one point on appeal. He argues the circuit court erred and abused its discretion by denying his second request for a mistrial after the investigating officer informed the jury twice that he found weapons inside Love's Jeep which directly violated the court's ruling involving a motion in limine.

After the state's witness stated a second time that he found weapons inside the Jeep, Love's counsel requested a mistrial but he subsequently failed to request a ruling from the trial court and he did not object to the court again reading a curative instruction directing the jury to disregard the witness statement. Since Love's trial counsel failed to object to the court offering a curative instruction, rather than granting his mistrial request, his objection is unpreserved and the proper standard of review is for plain error, not an abuse of discretion as Love claims. Since Love failed to facially establish substantial grounds that the circuit court committed plain error by providing a curative instruction instead of granting his request for a mistrial, this court declines to review for plain error. State v. Jones, 725 S.W.3d 577, 586 (Mo. banc 2025).

Factual and Procedural Background

On January 14, 2023, Love was driving his Jeep erratically, pulling around stopped vehicles and even driving illegally through the intersection of Highways F and M in Warren County. When law enforcement attempted to curb his vehicle, Love evaded them, driving at a high rate of speed that exceeded 110 miles per hour as he proceeded up and down hilly and sparsely-lit residential roads. At times, Love steered his Jeep into the path of oncoming traffic, creating further risk to others’ safety. Eventually, he lost control of his Jeep, crashed and ran from the scene before officers apprehended him in a nearby wooded area.

Love's wife was riding in the passenger seat while he fled from law enforcement but she remained at the scene following the crash. Officers searched the Jeep and found shards of methamphetamine, a glass bubble pipe that tested positive for methamphetamine, a makeshift tin foil pipe with burned marijuana residue and guns. Love admitted possessing the methamphetamine but denied owning the guns, claiming they belonged to his wife. Love was charged with possession of a controlled substance, resisting a stop by fleeing – creating a substantial risk of serious injury to others and driving while his license was revoked.

Before trial, the circuit court granted Love's motion in limine prohibiting the State from introducing any evidence about the firearms. Despite this prohibition, the Officer testified at trial that he “found guns” in the Jeep among other illegal contraband.

Then, Love's attorney objected and asked to approach at sidebar, where he requested a mistrial due to the State disregarding the circuit court's ruling regarding his motion in limine. Following a discussion between counsel and the court out of the hearing of the jury, Love's attorney ultimately consented to the court offering a curative instruction to correct the error and even provided input on the court's instructional language.

Shortly later in his testimony, Officer violated the circuit court's ruling regarding the motion in limine for a second time, again mentioning that he found weapons in the vehicle. Again, Love's attorney asked to approach at sidebar and requested a mistrial. Ultimately, the circuit court issued another curative instruction, directing the jury to disregard the witness statement about finding weapons inside the vehicle. Unlike the circumstances involving the sidebar that addressed the first violation of the court's ruling, his attorney did not agree to the court offering another curative instruction and he did not provide input on the language either. Additionally, Love's counsel did not specifically object to the court offering a second curative instruction and he did not request a court ruling on his second motion for a mistrial.

Later, the jury found Love guilty as charged and the trial court sentenced him to nine years in the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDC) on count one, a consecutive three-year term in MDC on count two and ordered him to pay a $25 fine on count three. Now he appeals.

Love Fails to Show the Circuit Court Committed Plain Error when Offering a Curative Instruction to the Jury

Standard of Review

Plain error review is discretionary and appellate courts generally do not review unpreserved claims of error. Jones, 725 S.W.3d at 582 (citing State v. Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Mo. banc 2020)). Rule 30.20 in the Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure states “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.” (emphasis added).

Appellate courts review for plain error under Rule 30.20 only when the appellant “establishes facially substantial grounds for believing that the trial court's error was evident, obvious, and clear and that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.” Jones, 725 S.W.3d at 583 (quoting State v. Jones, 427 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Mo. banc 2014)). Courts use the plain error rule sparingly and may not use the rule to justify a review of every point that has not been otherwise preserved for appellate review. Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d at 526.

Analysis

Love asserts the circuit court erred by denying his second request for a mistrial after Officer informed the jury on the second occasion that he found weapons inside Love's Jeep which directly violated the court's ruling on the motion in limine. Love's claim is unpreserved and qualifies for plain error review. His attorney neither requested a ruling on his motion for mistrial nor specifically objected to the court offering another curative instruction after Officer violated the court's ruling on the second occasion. Rouse v. Cuvelier, 363 S.W.3d 406, 420 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (holding a party's failure to obtain a ruling on the objection preserves nothing for appellate review).

“[P]lain 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.” Rule 30.20. We may decline to review for plain error if Love cannot show facially substantial grounds that the error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. Jones, 725 S.W.3d at 586.

Love must demonstrate that the court's error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice and he has failed to meet his burden. Id. at 583; State v. Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d 519, 526 (Mo. banc 2020). Love argues that Officer “knowingly and intentionally” inserted error, effectively prejudicing the jury against him by disregarding the court's ruling prohibiting any mention of firearms. While “[a] trial court may․ grant a mistrial if [an] evidentiary error is intentionally injected into the trial,” we note that Love does not prove that Officer deliberately provided objectionable, prejudicial testimony or knowingly defied the court's ruling. State v. Blurton, 484 S.W.3d 758, 779-80 (Mo. banc 2016) (citing State v. Aguilar, 478 S.W.2d 351, 355 (Mo. 1972)).

Likewise, we are equally unpersuaded that the court providing a curative instruction qualifies as manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, even after Officer mentioned weapons or firearms on a second occasion in his testimony. Specifically, the court instructed the jury to disregard Officer's statement about finding weapons inside Love's vehicle and we presume that jurors follow the court's instruction. State v. Burkett, 725 S.W.3d 565, 576 (Mo. banc 2025) (citing State v. Gilbert, 103 S.W.3d 743, 751 (Mo. banc 2003)); State v. McFadden, 391 S.W.3d 408, 421 (Mo. banc 2013). In the alternative, Love proposes a mistrial as the preferred outcome, but authority describes this as a “drastic remedy” and only necessary following “extraordinary circumstances.” State v. Overton, 261 S.W.3d 654, 663 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008). Those “extraordinary circumstances” do not exist here, considering the circuit court acted quickly, providing a measured, proportionate response to the uninvited error and directed the jury to disregard the witness statement.

Even more authority cautions against exercising plain error review under similar circumstances, specifically where the attorney's action or inaction contributed to the error. Jones, 725 S.W.3d at 584 (citing State v. Ess, 453 S.W.3d 196, 214 n. 6 (Mo. banc 2015); State v. Anderson, 294 S.W.3d 96, 100 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (declining to conduct plain error review after defendant affirmatively waived his claim of error by stating no objection to the finding he was a persistent offender). Here, Love's attorney failed to act. Although he made a second request for a mistrial, he did not request a ruling on his motion and he did not object when he learned that the circuit court was choosing an alternative remedy.

Love failed to facially establish substantial grounds that the circuit court committed plain error by providing the second curative instruction instead of granting his request for a mistrial. State v. Jones, 427 S.W.3d at 195. Following his failure, we decline his request for plain error review and any further analysis is unnecessary under the Rule 30.20 framework. Jones, 725 S.W.3d at 586. Love's sole point is denied.

Conclusion

We affirm the circuit court's judgment, Love's conviction and his sentence.

Thomas C. Clark II, Judge

Renee D. Hardin-Tammons, Presiding Judge, and Angela T. Quigless, Judge, concur.