rationale underlying rule in Missouri

2013“The rationale underlying this rule is grounded in the view that ‘[e]vidence of other crimes, when not properly related to the cause on trial, violates defendant’s right to be tried for the offense for which he is indicted.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Sladek, 835 S.W.2d 308, 311 (Mo. banc 1992)).

2011Id.

2024“The rationale underlying this rule is to shield the jury from a proliferation of issues which would require the court to go into the merits of such collateral 6 matters and to avoid the unfairness and surprise of requiring the opposing part to disprove issues not raised by the pleadings.” Id.

2018"The rationale underlying this rule is grounded in the view that evidence of other crimes, when not properly related to the cause on trial, violates defendant's right to be tried for the offense for which he is indicted." Id. (citing State v. Sladek , 835 S.W.2d 308 , 311 (Mo. banc 1992) ).

2010As the court in Sawicz noted “where the superintendent has initiated an action against officers of a failed corporation and raised claims implicating matters within the knowledge of the department of insurance, presumably acquired both prior to and after the superintendent’s appointment as liquidator, we are unable to conclude that the trial court erred in rejecting appellant’s capacities argument, and we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in rendering its discovery order.” Sawicz, 823 N.E.2d at 887 .

2001“The rationale underlying this rule is to shield the jury from a proliferation of issues which would require the court to go into the merits of such collateral matters and to avoid the unfairness and surprise of requiring the opposing party to disprove issues not raised by the pleadings.” Cline, 882 S.W.2d at 760 . “ ‘The test as to whether a matter is collateral ... is whether the party seeking to introduce it for purposes of contradiction would be entitled to prove it as a part of his case.’ ” Brewer, 23 S.W.3d at 919 (quoting D.K.L. by K.L. v. H.P.M., 763 S.W.2d 212, 218 (Mo.App.

2001“The rationale underlying this rule is to shield the jury from a proliferation of issues which would require the court to go into the merits of such collateral matters and to avoid the unfairness and surprise of requiring the opposing party to disprove issues not raised by the pleadings.” Cline, 882 S.W.2d at 760 . “ ‘The test as to whether a matter is collateral ... is whether the party seeking to introduce it for purposes of contradiction would be entitled to prove it as a part of his case.’ ” Brewer, 23 S.W.3d at 919 (quoting D.K.L. by K.L. v. H.P.M., 763 S.W.2d 212, 218 (Mo.App.

1996Id. at 664r-65.

1996Id.

1994Id.

1987He reaches this conclusion by asserting that the rationale underlying the rule, as stated in State v. Tilley, supra, is “[t]o require as a condition precedent to a conviction for armed criminal action that the state prove that a gun was loaded and operative would virtually render the statute unenforceable.” Therefore, his argument continues, because the rule is designed to prevent these practical problems of proof, where the state’s evidence affirmatively establishes that the gun was unloaded, the rule has no application.

1986The rationale underlying the rule of landlord and tenant liability as set forth in Roman v. King, supra and O’Neill v. Sherrill, supra, should be equally applicable whether the invitee is responding to the advertisement of the mall owner or to that of one of his tenants.

1986Additionally, this case presents a classic example of the rationale underlying the rule that “when a defendant in a criminal case is cross-examined with respect to a collateral matter for purposes of impeachment, his answers are conclusive and may not be the target of rebuttal testimony.” State v. Westrich, 664 S.W.2d 614 , 616 n. 1 (Mo.App.1984).

1986The advent of comparative negligence brought about by Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983), renders the injustice and inequality of applying the traditional rules to such a case even more apparent.

1982Id.

1979The averment of ownership serves the threefold purpose of: (1) showing title to be in someone other than the accused, in that one cannot be guilty of stealing one’s own property; (2) furnishing notice to a defendant of the particular of *331 fense so that he may adequately meet the charge; and (3) to bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense, State v. Hill, 528 S.W.2d 798 (Mo.App.1975).

1970The rationale underlying this requirement is stated in Schneider v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Mo.App., 413 S.W.2d 16 , as follows: “The dual purpose of an after-trial motion is stated tersely in Fruit Supply Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q.