State v. Mosely, 295 S.W.3d 487 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Mosely, 295 S.W.3d 487 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …a number of statutory exceptions whereby the state may nevertheless commence prosecution, even though the period of limitations has expired. ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …requiring a criminal defendant to raise the defense of the statute of limitations in the trial court affords the state an opportunity to respond to the defense, showing that the statute has not run, that it has been tolled, or that an exception applies. at p. 492 ⚠ not in text
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Akinbi v. United States
D.C. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the burden was on the defendant to affirmatively act to raise the defense in the first place, as opposed to affirmatively act to waive the defense. such is the essence of an affirmative defense.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Maurice P. Webber v. State of Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
requiring a criminal defendant to raise the defense of the statute of limitations in the trial court affords the state an opportunity to respond to the defense, showing that the statute has not run, that it has been tolled, or that an exception applies.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Brayon J. Williams
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
The issue, therefore, must be raised at the very least "before final disposition of the case whether by conviction or plea, or it is waived.” State v. Cotton, 295 S.W.3d 487, 490 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Missouri v. Maurice Parnell Webber
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
No lesser-included offense instruction was given to the jury other than the mistaken verdict director noted above. 10 The verdict and sentence on count VII, which had been charged as a class A felony, were recorded as class A felony and twenty-four years, respectively. 11 *229 As Mr. Webber concedes, “[t]he failure of a defendant to raise a statute of limitations defense results in the waiver of that defense, and a defendant ‘is precluded from raising the issue on appeal.’ ” (citing State v. Cotton, 295 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI v. GARRY L. FILBECK
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Cotton, 295 S.W.3d 487, 488-92 (Mo.App. 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dorris v. State
Mo. · 2012 · confidence medium
In statutes of limitation, the Missouri legislature prescribes certain time limitations for the commencement of actions 10 or criminal prosecutions. 11 State v. Cotton, 295 S.W.3d 487, 489 (Mo.App.2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jackson
Utah Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
If a criminal statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, "the burden [is] on the defendant to affirmatively act to raise the defense in the first place, as opposed to affirmatively act to waive the defense." State v. Cotton, 295 S.W.3d 487, 490-91 (Mo.Ct.App.2009). 1 31 Second, there is nothing about a criminal statute of limitations that convinces us that the legislature intended that it could be waived only by a knowing and voluntary waiver.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of Missouri v. Cale D. Seymour
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
This is consistent with the fact that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that can be permissibly "raised . . . before a final disposition of the case." Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012); see also, State v. Cotton, 295 S.W.3d 487, 490 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (holding the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations must be raised in a criminal case "'before final disposition of the case whether by conviction or plea, or it is waived'") (quoting Longhibler v. State, 832 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Mo. banc 1992)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Mitchell L. MOSELY, Appellant
WD 69282.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jun 23, 2009.
295 S.W.3d 487
S. Kate Webber, Esq., Kansas City, MO, for appellant., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Esq., and Jamie Rasmussen, Esq., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Lowenstein, Ellis, Hardwick.
Published

Order

PER CURIAM.

Mitchell Mosely appeals his conviction for second-degree domestic assault. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction.

AFFIRMED. Rule 80.25(b).