determined clause in Missouri

2021Moreover, section 217.460 provides that a determined violation of the UMDDL will not support dismissal of an indictment, complaint, or information unless the court also finds "that the offender's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied." See also James, 552 S.W.3d at 597 ("[T]he plain language of the UMDDL mandates the dismissal of a complaint not brought to trial within 180 days unless the 180-day period is tolled, and if the court finds that the offender's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied." (quoting State v. McKay, 411 S.W.3d 295, 302 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013)

2021Moreover, section 217.460 provides that a determined violation of the UMDDL will not support dismissal of an indictment, complaint, or information unless the court also finds "that the offender's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied." See also James, 552 S.W.3d at 597 ("[T]he plain language of the UMDDL mandates the dismissal of a complaint not brought to trial within 180 days unless the 180-day period is tolled, and if the court finds that the offender's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied." (quoting State v. McKay, 411 S.W.3d 295, 302 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013)

2020Under harmless error review, determined error of constitutional proportion must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, a determination that "depends upon a host of factors," including, without limitation, the importance of the improperly admitted or excluded testimony, "whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, . . . and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case." Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986). 42 There is no basis in the record for us to find tha

2020"A finding of outcome-determinative prejudice expresses a judicial conclusion that the erroneously [excluded] evidence so influenced the jury that, when considered with and balanced against all of the evidence properly admitted, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different conclusion but for the erroneously [excluded] evidence." State v. Barriner, 34 S.W.3d 139, 150 (Mo. banc 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).13 13 Even in Crane, where the determined claim of constitutional error was preserved, the United States Supreme Court noted that the

2019See In re Adoption of C.M., 414 S.W.3d at 659 (“There is no requirement that all seven of [the Section 211.447.7] factors must be negated; likewise, there is no minimum number of negative factors required for termination.”).

1998Corp. v. Connelly Food Products, Inc., 175 Ill.App.3d 655 , 125 Ill.Dec. 108, 110 , 529 N.E.2d 1184, 1186 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.1988), plaintiff brought an action against defendant for breach of contract, the terms of which provided that the contract was to remain in effect “as long as Connelly serves Rich’s [RJN’s] customers.” The court determined that this clause could not be construed as an objective event, the occurrence of which terminated the contract thereby making it sufficiently definite in duration.

1998Corp. v. Connelly Food Products, Inc., 175 Ill.App.3d 655 , 125 Ill.Dec. 108, 110 , 529 N.E.2d 1184, 1186 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.1988), plaintiff brought an action against defendant for breach of contract, the terms of which provided that the contract was to remain in effect “as long as Connelly serves Rich’s [RJN’s] customers.” The court determined that this clause could not be construed as an objective event, the occurrence of which terminated the contract thereby making it sufficiently definite in duration.

1995In Johnson , the court determined that defense is not available in narcotics situations where the defendant denied making the actual “sale.” Id.; State v. Bounds, 644 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Mo.App.1981).