evidence adduced hearing in Missouri

2014E.D.2012) (“Here, the family court’s judgment provided lip-service to the statutes, but merely offered the conclusory statement that Mother ‘failed [to] provide the proper care, custody and support as alleged in the petition.’ Given the evidence adduced at the hearing regarding Mother’s alleged involvement with methamphetamine and the child’s exposure to such an environment, it is inexcusable that the family court did not make any findings of fact to support the exercise of jurisdiction.”); In re E.K, 154 S.W.3d 453, 455 (Mo.App.

2012Further, “the court may consider additional evidence on remand.” In re E.K., 154 S.W.3d 453, 455 (Mo.App.

2006See Hardin v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Mo.App.

2004See Hardin v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Mo.App.1999).

1973In Flood v. State, 476 S.W.2d 529, 533 [2] (Mo.1972); Brodkowicz v. State, 474 S.W.2d 822, 828 [6] (Mo.1971); State v. Grimm, 461 S.W.2d 746, 752 [2] (Mo.1971); Drew v. State, 436 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Mo.1969), and State v. Mountjoy, 420 S.W.2d 316, 324 [9] (Mo.1967), we held that in determining whether a plea of guilty was entered voluntarily with understanding of the charge the trial court in a 27.26 proceeding is not limited to the record made at the time the plea was entered but may make the determination on the basis of both that record and the evidence adduced at the hearing of the motion to

1971D., Mo., 308 F.Supp. 635 . *393 “[2] The trial court in this case was, therefore, permitted to consider and pass upon the voluntariness of appellant’s pleas on the basis of the record at the time of the pleas and of the evidence adduced at the hearing on the collateral attack.” State v. Grimm, Mo., 461 S.W.2d 746, 752 .

2022The evidence adduced at the hearing and relevant to this appeal, viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, see In re T.T.G., 530 S.W.3d 489, 491 (Mo. banc 2017), is as follows.

2021The court stressed that “dependency at the time of the injury must be ‘established as a matter of law in the final award.’” Id. at 786 (emphasis in original) (quoting Edwards, 529 S.W.3d at 11 ).

2021The court rejected the same argument in Lawrence, where the transcript contained references to the employee’s wife and daughters, noting that “it is irrelevant that an individual’s status as a dependent of a claimant could have been established in a Final Award or that such a finding would have been supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing before the ALJ.” 609 S.W.3d at 785 (emphasis in original).

2020See Estate of Dunkin v. Treasurer of the State of Mo., 516 S.W.3d 863, 867 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (while appreciating that evidence brought forward after the claimant’s death provided clarity on the issue of wife’s status as a dependent, the relevant question was whether dependency had been established in the final award).

2007Contra State v. Johnson, 529 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Mo.App.1975) (parties stipulated that testimony taken at hearing on motion to suppress may be admitted into evidence at trial as though presented in the state’s case in chief); State v. Wirth, 192 S.W.3d *23 480, 482 (Mo.App.2006) (defendant requested that the motion to suppress “be taken up — ... with the trial in this matter.”); State v. McDonald, 10 S.W.3d 561, 562-563 (Mo.App.1999) (defendant stipulated that hearing on motion to suppress was also considered as the trial of the case).

2007Contra State v. Johnson, 529 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Mo.App.1975) (parties stipulated that testimony taken at hearing on motion to suppress may be admitted into evidence at trial as though presented in the state’s case in chief); State v. Wirth, 192 S.W.3d *23 480, 482 (Mo.App.2006) (defendant requested that the motion to suppress “be taken up — ... with the trial in this matter.”); State v. McDonald, 10 S.W.3d 561, 562-563 (Mo.App.1999) (defendant stipulated that hearing on motion to suppress was also considered as the trial of the case).

2007State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464, 472 (Mo. banc 2005); State v. Harrison, 213 S.W.3d 58, 68 (Mo.App.2006).

2007State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464, 472 (Mo. banc 2005); State v. Harrison, 213 S.W.3d 58, 68 (Mo.App.2006).

2004Point I, however, does not question the commission’s assessment “that even if admitted into evidence the proposed evidence lacks the probative value necessary to cause a change in the underlying decision to deny [claimant] benefits.” A party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence presented in the first incidence to the ALJ or the Commission must show the following: (1) the evidence came to the movant’s knowledge since the trial; (2) due diligence would not have uncovered the evidence sooner; (3) the new evidence is so material it would probably have produced a different

1990Our review of the court’s order is limited by the oft cited maxims of Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); the order will be sustained unless no substantial evidence supports it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law.

1987Yoon v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 721, 723 [2] (Mo.banc 1987).

1984State v. Cleveland, 627 S.W.2d 600, 601 [2] (Mo.1982); State v. Smith, 612 S.W.2d 895, 897 [1] (Mo.App. 1981).

1984State v. Cleveland, 627 S.W.2d 600, 601 [2] (Mo.1982); State v. Smith, 612 S.W.2d 895, 897 [1] (Mo.App. 1981).

1978United States v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50, 57 [7-8] (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 949 , 94 S.Ct. 3076 , 41 L.Ed.2d 669 (1974); State v. Dayton, supra, 535 S.W.2d at 484-86 [1-4], However, the evidence adduced at the hearing for the motion to suppress and at trial revealed that the bottle of chloroform, the gasoline can and the chisel were found and the photographs and diagram of the other rooms were made by Sergeant Duff-ner after he had discovered the bodies of the three missing persons and Officer Schindler had ascertained that neither defendant nor any other victims were in the house.

1978United States v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50, 57 [7-8] (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 949 , 94 S.Ct. 3076 , 41 L.Ed.2d 669 (1974); State v. Dayton, supra, 535 S.W.2d at 484-86 [1-4], However, the evidence adduced at the hearing for the motion to suppress and at trial revealed that the bottle of chloroform, the gasoline can and the chisel were found and the photographs and diagram of the other rooms were made by Sergeant Duff-ner after he had discovered the bodies of the three missing persons and Officer Schindler had ascertained that neither defendant nor any other victims were in the house.

1978State v. Blankenship, 526 S.W.2d 78, 82 [6, 7] (Mo.App.1975).

1973In Flood v. State, 476 S.W.2d 529, 533 [2] (Mo.1972); Brodkowicz v. State, 474 S.W.2d 822, 828 [6] (Mo.1971); State v. Grimm, 461 S.W.2d 746, 752 [2] (Mo.1971); Drew v. State, 436 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Mo.1969), and State v. Mountjoy, 420 S.W.2d 316, 324 [9] (Mo.1967), we held that in determining whether a plea of guilty was entered voluntarily with understanding of the charge the trial court in a 27.26 proceeding is not limited to the record made at the time the plea was entered but may make the determination on the basis of both that record and the evidence adduced at the hearing of the motion to

1973In Flood v. State, 476 S.W.2d 529, 533 [2] (Mo.1972); Brodkowicz v. State, 474 S.W.2d 822, 828 [6] (Mo.1971); State v. Grimm, 461 S.W.2d 746, 752 [2] (Mo.1971); Drew v. State, 436 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Mo.1969), and State v. Mountjoy, 420 S.W.2d 316, 324 [9] (Mo.1967), we held that in determining whether a plea of guilty was entered voluntarily with understanding of the charge the trial court in a 27.26 proceeding is not limited to the record made at the time the plea was entered but may make the determination on the basis of both that record and the evidence adduced at the hearing of the motion to

1973In Flood v. State, 476 S.W.2d 529, 533 [2] (Mo.1972); Brodkowicz v. State, 474 S.W.2d 822, 828 [6] (Mo.1971); State v. Grimm, 461 S.W.2d 746, 752 [2] (Mo.1971); Drew v. State, 436 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Mo.1969), and State v. Mountjoy, 420 S.W.2d 316, 324 [9] (Mo.1967), we held that in determining whether a plea of guilty was entered voluntarily with understanding of the charge the trial court in a 27.26 proceeding is not limited to the record made at the time the plea was entered but may make the determination on the basis of both that record and the evidence adduced at the hearing of the motion to

1973In Flood v. State, 476 S.W.2d 529, 533 [2] (Mo.1972); Brodkowicz v. State, 474 S.W.2d 822, 828 [6] (Mo.1971); State v. Grimm, 461 S.W.2d 746, 752 [2] (Mo.1971); Drew v. State, 436 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Mo.1969), and State v. Mountjoy, 420 S.W.2d 316, 324 [9] (Mo.1967), we held that in determining whether a plea of guilty was entered voluntarily with understanding of the charge the trial court in a 27.26 proceeding is not limited to the record made at the time the plea was entered but may make the determination on the basis of both that record and the evidence adduced at the hearing of the motion to