MO: Requiring trial objection after denial of motion to suppress allows trial court to reconsider; issue still preserved here

Defense counsel in Missouri is obligated to object again when evidence that was subject to a motion to suppress that was overruled is offered into evidence. This gives the trial court the opportunity to revisit the ruling under the evidence adduced thus far in trial. There was no continuing objection, but here, as in other cases, the parties treated the issue as preserved for appellate review. State v. Hughes, 2018 Mo. LEXIS 562 (Dec. 19, 2018):

… This is because the trial judge “should be given an opportunity to reconsider his prior ruling against the backdrop of the evidence actually adduced at trial.” State v. Fields, 636 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Mo. App. 1982), citing State v. Yowell, 513 S.W.2d 397, 403 (Mo. banc 1974). This also allows the defendant to control whether the objection is maintained or withdrawn. “It is entirely possible that after hearing the evidence on motion to suppress the defendant’s attorney may become convinced that his motion was without merit. The required objection will therefore serve to advise the court as to whether the defendant continues to consider the evidence inadmissible.” Yowell, 513 S.W.2d at 403.