objections instruction in Missouri

1953The objections to an instruction which states that one who intentionally uses upon another at some, vital spot a deadly weapon must be presumed to intend death noted in State v. Creighton, 330 Mo. 1176 , 52 S.W. 2d 556 , are not apposite -here'.because of the difference in the facts.

1953The objections to an instruction which states that one who intentionally uses upon another at some, vital spot a deadly weapon must be presumed to intend death noted in State v. Creighton, 330 Mo. 1176 , 52 S.W. 2d 556 , are not apposite -here'.because of the difference in the facts.

2013Neither the trial court nor opposing counsel believed that O’Neal had waived his suppression arguments; indeed, the prosecution promised that it would not raise preservation arguments in later proceedings, 7 and the trial court expressly stated that O’Neal’s suppression-hearing objections “would be deemed as trial objections as well.” In these circumstances, limiting O’Neal to plain-error review, or denying him any appellate review whatsoever, “would be a hypertechnical application of the requirement of renewing the objection at every stage.” Stillman, 938 S.W.2d at 290 .

1999“A trial court’s ruling on whether to allow a voir dire question will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Hall, 955 S.W.2d 198, 203 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1375 , 140 L.Ed.2d 523 (1998).

1998The appellate court held that overruling the objections was not error, saying, “When a defendant waives her right *627 to remain silent and takes the stand in her own defense, she subjects herself to cross-examination on the credibility of her testimony.” Id. 686 P.2d at 941 .

1998The appellate court held that overruling the objections was not error, saying, “When a defendant waives her right *627 to remain silent and takes the stand in her own defense, she subjects herself to cross-examination on the credibility of her testimony.” Id. 686 P.2d at 941 .

1990Powers v. Ellfeldt, 768 S.W.2d 142 (Mo.App.1989); Rule 70.03.

1990The Supreme Court held it is a deprivation of due process to allow a prosecutor to use an arrestee's silence, after Miranda warnings, to impeach his testimony at trial. 426 U.S. at 618-19 , 96 S.Ct. at 2245 .

1990The Supreme Court held it is a deprivation of due process to allow a prosecutor to use an arrestee's silence, after Miranda warnings, to impeach his testimony at trial. 426 U.S. at 618-19 , 96 S.Ct. at 2245 .

1981NOTES [1] The special rule established by Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968) is applicable only in death cases, and does not affect cases such as this.

1981NOTES [1] The special rule established by Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968) is applicable only in death cases, and does not affect cases such as this.

1963The only evidence on the subject matter was to the effect that he was mentally retarded, an epileptic, had never gone to school and had never worked at any time prior to the injuries complained of.” In neither form nor substance is the instruction comparable to instruction 7 in Westfall v. Mossinghoff, J. & Company, (Mo.) 345 5.W.2d 148, 152-153, and its five times repeated "and the ill effects, if any, which naturally and necessarily followed from such injuries.” Even so, said the court, “We do not determine whether the giving of this instruction in itself constituted reversible error.” The l

1923It was at least open.to the jury to find that in the morning hours and foggy times, the schedule furnished had been abandoned with appellant’s knowledge and assent, in so far as any question in this case is concerned. [Yost v. Railroad, 245 Mo. l. c. 245, 246, and cases cited; McNee v. Trolley Co., 170 Mass. 283 .] When a schedule is departed from or abandoned, it is the duty of the company to provide some other rule or system which will, bring about the safe running of its cars. [Lewis v. Seifert, 116 Pa. St. 628; 3 Labatt on Master & Servant (2 Ed.) sec. 1123, p. 2971, et seq.] The objection

1922This point directs our attention to the case of Spelman v. Delano, 177 Mo. App. 28 , decided by this court, in which it was held, in effect, that in a suit by a bailor of personal property against a third party for damages to the property while in the possession of the bailee, if there is no .element of principal or agent, master and servant, or of partnership, existing between the bailor and bailee, then contributory negligence of the bailee is not imputable to the bailor so as to constitute a defense.