Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Missouri v. Cornell McKaygreen2 sentences2024State v. McKay, 459 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). 2022Movant argues, under the direct connection rule, “evidence that another had opportunity or motive is admissible if there is also proof that the other person committed some act directly 7 connecting him with the crime.” State v. McKay, 459 S.W.3d 450, 458 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Woodworthgreen2 sentences2016In Woodworth, the victim testified at trial that he had not seen his assailant. 941 S.W.2d 679, 690 (Mo.App.W.D.1997). 2014According to the direct connection rule, “evidence that another had opportunity or motive is admissible if there is also proof that the other person committed some act directly connecting him with the crime.” State v. Speaks, 298 S.W.3d 70, 86 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009) (quoting State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679, 690 (Mo.App.W.D.1997)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bowensgreen2 sentences2024Whittier, 591 S.W.3d 13 at 23-24 (evidence the alternative perpetrator was violent toward the victim in the past, possessed a gun, and stalked the victim after they broke up was properly excluded); State v. Wright, 551 S.W.3d 608 , 615–16 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (evidence that a witness saw a man who was not the defendant flee the area of a shooting did not meet the direct connection requirement because the witness did not see the man carry a firearm or running directly from the site of the shooting and the timing of the shooting and the man fleeing was not certain); State v. Bowens, 550 S.W.3d 8 2019Id. | 1 | 2 |
Bruce Krysl v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fundgreen1 sentence2024Whittier, 591 S.W.3d 13 at 23-24 (evidence the alternative perpetrator was violent toward the victim in the past, possessed a gun, and stalked the victim after they broke up was properly excluded); State v. Wright, 551 S.W.3d 608 , 615–16 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (evidence that a witness saw a man who was not the defendant flee the area of a shooting did not meet the direct connection requirement because the witness did not see the man carry a firearm or running directly from the site of the shooting and the timing of the shooting and the man fleeing was not certain); State v. Bowens, 550 S.W.3d 8 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nashgreen1 sentence2024Whittier, 591 S.W.3d 13 at 23-24 (evidence the alternative perpetrator was violent toward the victim in the past, possessed a gun, and stalked the victim after they broke up was properly excluded); State v. Wright, 551 S.W.3d 608 , 615–16 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (evidence that a witness saw a man who was not the defendant flee the area of a shooting did not meet the direct connection requirement because the witness did not see the man carry a firearm or running directly from the site of the shooting and the timing of the shooting and the man fleeing was not certain); State v. Bowens, 550 S.W.3d 8 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hardinggreen1 sentence2019See also State v. Harding, 528 S.W.3d 362, 377-78 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (offered evidence “must establish a clear link between the alleged alternative perpetrator and a key piece of evidence in the crime”) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Speaksgreen2 sentences2014“The evidence must be such proof as directly connects the other person with the corpus delicti, and tends clearly to point out someone besides accused as the guilty person.” Speaks, 298 S.W.3d at 86 (quoting Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d at 690 ). 2014According to the direct connection rule, “evidence that another had opportunity or motive is admissible if there is also proof that the other person committed some act directly connecting him with the crime.” State v. Speaks, 298 S.W.3d 70, 86 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009) (quoting State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679, 690 (Mo.App.W.D.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wright
green
1 sentence2024Whittier, 591 S.W.3d 13 at 23-24 (evidence the alternative perpetrator was violent toward the victim in the past, possessed a gun, and stalked the victim after they broke up was properly excluded); State v. Wright, 551 S.W.3d 608 , 615–16 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (evidence that a witness saw a man who was not the defendant flee the area of a shooting did not meet the direct connection requirement because the witness did not see the man carry a firearm or running directly from the site of the shooting and the timing of the shooting and the man fleeing was not certain); State v. Bowens, 550 S.W.3d 8 | 1 | 2024–2024 |