he had set up the drug buy for Peterson, but was not present at the scene. Still later, he admitted to police that he was at the scene and “made the deal,” but that an accomplice started shooting at Zemke’s car when it took off. Manuel was charged with second-degree (felony) murder and armed criminal action, and was convicted as charged. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years for murder and five years for armed criminal action. Manuel filed this timely appeal. Analysis Manuel raises two points on appeal. First, Manuel seeks plain error review of a claim that the verdict director for felony murder was legally erroneous because it failed to tender each of the essenti ruction for plain error pursuant to Rule 30.20. State v. Wurtzberger, 40 S.W.3d 893, 897-98 (Mo. banc 2001) (<HOLDING>). Instructional error seldom rises to the level
holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error holding that a party waived an allegation that an instruction was erroneous where the party failed to object at trial to the instruction on those grounds holding that neither failure to object to an instruction nor an express statement of no objection to an instruction waive plain error review pursuant to rule 3020 holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver