meaningful opportunity challenge in Missouri

2003“In matters involving the admission of evidence, we also review for prejudice and will reverse only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Foster, 68 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo.App.2001). “[A]n important purpose of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination is to provide litigants with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the veracity of testimony through the process of impeachment.” State v. Johnson, 700 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Mo.banc 1985).

2002Montgomery explains: “It is well-established that an important purpose of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination is to provide litigants with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the veracity of testimony through the process of impeachment.” State v. Johnson, 700 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Mo. banc 1985), cert. denied 476 U.S. 1119 , 106 S.Ct. 1980 , 90 L.Ed.2d 663 (1986).

2009Dabin v. Dir. of Revenue, 9 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Mo. banc 2000).

2000Petitioner challenges the findings on the merits and also claims a denial of due process because he did not have a meaningful opportunity for a hearing by an Article V judge before judgment was entered, as required by Dabin v. Director of Revenue, 9 S.W.3d 610 (Mo. banc 2000).

1987It is a well settled point of law “that an important purpose of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination is to provide litigants with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the veracity of testimony through the process of impeachment.” State v. Johnson, 700 S.W.2d 815 (Mo. banc 1985); See also State v. Russell, 625 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. banc 1981).

1985State v. Russell, 625 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. banc 1981); see also McCormick On Evidence, § 22 (3rd ed. 1984).

2003“In matters involving the admission of evidence, we also review for prejudice and will reverse only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Foster, 68 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo.App.2001). “[A]n important purpose of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination is to provide litigants with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the veracity of testimony through the process of impeachment.” State v. Johnson, 700 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Mo.banc 1985).

1988See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 , 102 S.Ct. 1148 , 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (dismissal with prejudice under similar circumstances violates party’s constitutional right of due process).

1988See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 , 102 S.Ct. 1148 , 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (dismissal with prejudice under similar circumstances violates party’s constitutional right of due process).