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 2 courts 1969–1981 0 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 v. Morgangreen2 sentences1978In Morgan, supra, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the prohibition of § 546.270 RSMo1969, and Rule 26.08, V.A.M.R. is against comments that the accused did not testify, and not comments that the accused did not offer any evidence. 1973As stated in State v. Morgan, 444 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Mo.1969), “the prohibition of § 546.270 RSMo 19 [6] 9 and Criminal Rule 26.08 is against comment that the accused did not testify; not that the defendant did not offer any evidence.” See, also, State v. Robb, 439 S. W.2d 510 (Mo.1961); State v. Kilgore, 447 S.W.2d 544 (Mo.1969); State v. Hutchinson, 458 S.W.2d 553 (banc 1970). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence1981State v. Morgan, 444 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Mo.1969); State v. Hamilton, 612 S.W.2d 141, 145 (Mo.App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Craiggreen2 sentences1969As to (2) : State v. Craig, Mo.Sup., 406 S.W.2d 618, 624 [12], held that the comment that the testmony of the state’s witnesses is “uncontradicted” is not an improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify, citing State v. Willis, Mo.Sup., 328 S.W.2d 593 , and authorities, l. c. 595. 1969As to (2): State v. Craig, Mo.Sup., 406 S.W.2d 618, 624 [12], held that the comment that the testmony of the state's witnesses is "uncontradicted" is not an improper comment on defendant's failure to testify, citing State v. Willis, Mo.Sup., 328 S.W.2d 593 , and authorities, l. c. 595. | 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. Michael
green
2 sentences1980As stated in State v. Michael, Mo.Sup., 361 S.W.2d 664, 667 , the prohibition of § 546.270 RSMo 1959, and Criminal Rule 26.08 is against comment that the accused did not testify; not that the defendant did not offer any evidence. 1969As stated in State v. Michael, Mo.Sup., 361 S.W.2d 664, 667 , the prohibition of § 546.270, RSMo 1959, and Criminal Rule 26.08 is against comment that the accused did not testify; not that the defendant did not offer any evidence. | 2 | 1969–1980 |
State v. Kilgore
green
1 sentence1973As stated in State v. Morgan, 444 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Mo.1969), “the prohibition of § 546.270 RSMo 19 [6] 9 and Criminal Rule 26.08 is against comment that the accused did not testify; not that the defendant did not offer any evidence.” See, also, State v. Robb, 439 S. W.2d 510 (Mo.1961); State v. Kilgore, 447 S.W.2d 544 (Mo.1969); State v. Hutchinson, 458 S.W.2d 553 (banc 1970). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Robb
green
1 sentence1973As stated in State v. Morgan, 444 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Mo.1969), “the prohibition of § 546.270 RSMo 19 [6] 9 and Criminal Rule 26.08 is against comment that the accused did not testify; not that the defendant did not offer any evidence.” See, also, State v. Robb, 439 S. W.2d 510 (Mo.1961); State v. Kilgore, 447 S.W.2d 544 (Mo.1969); State v. Hutchinson, 458 S.W.2d 553 (banc 1970). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Hutchinson
green
1 sentence1973As stated in State v. Morgan, 444 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Mo.1969), “the prohibition of § 546.270 RSMo 19 [6] 9 and Criminal Rule 26.08 is against comment that the accused did not testify; not that the defendant did not offer any evidence.” See, also, State v. Robb, 439 S. W.2d 510 (Mo.1961); State v. Kilgore, 447 S.W.2d 544 (Mo.1969); State v. Hutchinson, 458 S.W.2d 553 (banc 1970). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Willis
green
2 sentences1969As to (2) : State v. Craig, Mo.Sup., 406 S.W.2d 618, 624 [12], held that the comment that the testmony of the state’s witnesses is “uncontradicted” is not an improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify, citing State v. Willis, Mo.Sup., 328 S.W.2d 593 , and authorities, l. c. 595. 1969As to (2): State v. Craig, Mo.Sup., 406 S.W.2d 618, 624 [12], held that the comment that the testmony of the state's witnesses is "uncontradicted" is not an improper comment on defendant's failure to testify, citing State v. Willis, Mo.Sup., 328 S.W.2d 593 , and authorities, l. c. 595. | 1 | 1969–1969 |