 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Braxton v. State, No. 27835,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant entered a guilty plea to felony possession of a controlled substance, the trial court informed appellant that he was giving up his right to file a motion to suppress. He was not entitled to post-conviction relief under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 24.035(k), because counsel failed to file a motion to suppress evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Elliott, No. 28004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for rape, sodomy, domestic assault and false imprisonment were proper because the record did not clearly demonstrate that the trial court considered and relied upon the victim's written statement. Even if the written statement had not been admitted, there was other evidence from which defendant would have found him guilty.
|
|||||
| Capital One Bank v. Creed, No. 27752,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of the customer on the credit card company's breach of contract action was affirmed because the action was barred by the five year statute of limitations under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120, when the customer made a partial payment on December 2, 1999, and the action was not filed until January 3, 2005.
|
|||||
| Pradt v. State, No. 28008,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal challenging the denial of postconviction relief was dismissed under the escape rule, because the petitioner's escape from the mission was willful and did adversely affect the criminal justice system, and it was the petitioner's second, deliberate decision to abscond while on probation that resulted in his eventual imprisonment.
|
|||||
| State v. Daniels, No. 27821,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to suppress was affirmed because the police had more than a hunch that criminal activity was afoot, when the police were responding to a report of suspicious activity in a parking lot and drugs were found on one individual in the group, and there was objective justification to hold the cars long enough to run the drug dog.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, WD65572,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First-degree assault conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial because defendant was prejudiced by the trial court's improper admission of evidence concerning an uncharged crime, when the prior incident was not factually necessary or relevant to establish that defendant encouraged the shooter to shoot the victim and others.
|
|||||
| State v. Rios, WD 65708,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, WESTERN DISTRICT, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by admitting into evidence the victim's statement to a witness that he was going to confront defendant about whether defendant was married under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule because the statement did not indicate that defendant intended to do so in the immediate future.
|
|||||
| State v. Sardeson, No. 27724,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a second degree murder case, denial of defendant's motion to suppress his confession was proper as a reasonable person in defendant's position would not have understood the situation to be one of custody: defendant voluntarily agreed to be questioned, secured his own transportation to the interview; and was told that he was free to leave.
|
|||||
| State v. Tanner, No. 27656,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.062 were proper because the victim did "testify" at trial. The victim's reluctance to testify, especially considering her young age, was not the same as not testifying.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
