 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Hoover, No. ED87068,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action were inappropriate because defedant's son's statements to the police referenced during the State's opening statement and admitted after introduced in police officer testimony during the State's case-in-chief were inadmissible. The son was not available at trial.
|
|||||
| State v. March, No. SC87902,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's second-degree drug trafficking conviction was reversed and remanded because the lab report identifying the substance seized during a search of his girlfriend's apartment as cocaine base was testimonial evidence, its admission without the lab analyst's testimony violated the Confrontation Clause, and the error was not harmless.
|
|||||
| State v. Mayfield, No. ED87375,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, March 20, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for mistrial since, although two jurors had been exposed to new information concerning case after jury began deliberating, trial court conducted thorough inquiry of affected jurors and found that they had not shared information with other jurors and that it would not affect their deliberations.
|
|||||
| State v. McFadden, No. SC87753,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of appellant's Batson challenge was clearly erroneous because State's exercise of peremptory challenge to remove African-American woman from jury pool because she had crazy red hair was not race-neutral. Use of appellant's prior homicide convictions and death sentence as aggravating factor for jury's consideration was also clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| State v. Murillo, WD 66178,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, March 20, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Sidner, No. ED88100,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, March 20, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Tyler, WD 67384,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, March 20, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal from the denial of appellant's post-conviction motion challenging his 1977 convictions was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over appellant's untimely and successive post-conviction motion, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.
|
|||||
| State v. Vanlue, No. 27755,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case where a prosecutor's closing argument stated that a police officer was not a liar, there was no plain error under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 30.20 because the State was allowed to comment on the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses; moreover, the State was allowed more leeway since it was merely retaliating to defendant's closing argument.
|
|||||
| State v. Ward, No. ED87599,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court's transfer of defendant's case to the supreme court in light of the general interest and importance of the issues involved was appropriate under Mo. Const. art. I, § 18(a) and U.S. Const. amends. VI and XIV, because he was not permitted to testify in his criminal trial since he refused to take an oath of any type.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
