Robinson exception in Missouri

2003The Robinson exception was recognized in Missouri in State v. Smith, 752 S.W.2d 445 (Mo.App.1988).

2003The Robinson exception was recognized in Missouri in State v. Smith, 752 S.W.2d 445 (Mo.App.1988).

2025Point on Appeal Robinson grounds his argument for section 571.070’s unconstitutionality in the new analytical framework outlined in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

2019“We do not overlook Robinson’s admonition that searches of a person incident to arrest, ‘while based upon the need to disarm and to discover evidence,’ are reasonable regardless of ‘the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found.’” Id. (quoting Robinson, 414 U.S. at 235 ). 3 Together, the holdings in Robinson, Gustafson, and Edwards establish the fact of a lawful arrest is sufficient to justify a reasonably delayed search of 3 The Supreme Court also recently reaffirmed, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2175-76 (2016), Robinson’s

2019“We do not overlook Robinson’s admonition that searches of a person incident to arrest, ‘while based upon the need to disarm and to discover evidence,’ are reasonable regardless of ‘the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found.’” Id. (quoting Robinson, 414 U.S. at 235 ). 3 Together, the holdings in Robinson, Gustafson, and Edwards establish the fact of a lawful arrest is sufficient to justify a reasonably delayed search of 3 The Supreme Court also recently reaffirmed, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2175-76 (2016), Robinson’s

2019The trial 1 Robinson’s Motion to Strike was taken with the case, and we deny it as moot. 2 Although the case name is spelled Robinson v. Lagenbach, this appears to be a typographical error, as Langenbach is spelled correctly throughout the body of the case. 439 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). 2 court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and denied Robinson’s motion for partial summary judgment without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law.

2019Id. at 855-56 .

2018"Propensity evidence is 'evidence of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or acts' used to establish that defendant has a natural tendency to commit the crime charged." State v. Shockley , 410 S.W.3d 179 , 193 (Mo. banc 2013) (quoting State v. Bernard , 849 S.W.2d 10 , 13 (Mo. banc 1993) ).

2018"Propensity evidence is 'evidence of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or acts' used to establish that defendant has a natural tendency to commit the crime charged." State v. Shockley , 410 S.W.3d 179 , 193 (Mo. banc 2013) (quoting State v. Bernard , 849 S.W.2d 10 , 13 (Mo. banc 1993) ).

2018Robinson concedes that he did not object at trial, nor was this issue included in his motion for a new trial; thus, we review Robinson's claim of error, if at all, under the plain-error standard pursuant to Rule 30.20. 3 See State v. Kunonga , 490 S.W.3d 746 , 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016).

2017Specifically, the State argues that the evidence did not support the court’s conclusion that the' deficiencies in the search warrant were the result of systemic negligence' warranting exclusion, ' ■ The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236 , 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).

2017Specifically, the State argues that the evidence did not support the court’s conclusion that the' deficiencies in the search warrant were the result of systemic negligence' warranting exclusion, ' ■ The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236 , 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).

2017Id.

2016Instead, exclusive control “must be construed in the context of its application in Chadwick.” Id.

1996Id. at [10], As reported earlier, Appellant’s point relied on avers the victim “lacked the ability to accurately observe events and to retain an independent recollection of events.” That appears to be a claim that the victim did not satisfy requirements 2 and 3 of the Robinson test in the preceding paragraph.

1996Id. at [10], As reported earlier, Appellant’s point relied on avers the victim “lacked the ability to accurately observe events and to retain an independent recollection of events.” That appears to be a claim that the victim did not satisfy requirements 2 and 3 of the Robinson test in the preceding paragraph.

1977Nor is the evidence here sufficient to bring this search within the exception carved out of the Fourth Amendment protections by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

1977Nor is the evidence here sufficient to bring this search within the exception carved out of the Fourth Amendment protections by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

1975The evidence in this case, therefore, unlike the cases cited by defendant for support [State v. Favell, 411 S.W.2d 245 (Mo.App.1967); State v. Walker, 365 S.W.2d 597 (Mo.1963)], shows more than a mere presence of the defendant at the scene of the crime and an opportunity to have committed the offense.

1975The evidence in this case, therefore, unlike the cases cited by defendant for support [State v. Favell, 411 S.W.2d 245 (Mo.App.1967); State v. Walker, 365 S.W.2d 597 (Mo.1963)], shows more than a mere presence of the defendant at the scene of the crime and an opportunity to have committed the offense.