Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Powellgreen2 sentences2025“The knowing and intelligent requirement does not mean that a defendant must know and understand all the possible consequences of the waiver.” Id. (quoting State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo. banc 1990)). 2021“The knowing and intelligent requirement does not mean that a defendant must know and understand all the possible consequences of the waiver.” State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo. banc 1990) (quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 422 (1986)). | 9 | 11 |
Moran v. Burbinegreen2 sentences2021“The knowing and intelligent requirement does not mean that a defendant must know and understand all the possible consequences of the waiver.” State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo. banc 1990) (quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 422 (1986)). 2014“Rather, it requires that the defendant understood the warnings themselves; ‘that he at all times knew that he could stand mute and request a lawyer, and that he was aware of the State’s intention to use his statements to secure a conviction.’ ” Id. (quoting Moran, 475 U.S. at 422 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wilkinsongreen1 sentence2012The “showing that a ‘defendant was informed of his rights, that he was capable of understanding those rights, and that no physical force, threats, promises, or coercive tactics were used to obtain the confession,’ is prima facie evidence that the confession given while the defendant was in custody was voluntary.” State v. Johnson, 988 S.W.2d 115, 120 (Mo. App.1999) (quoting State v. Wilkinson, 861 S.W.2d 746, 750 (Mo.App.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2012The “showing that a ‘defendant was informed of his rights, that he was capable of understanding those rights, and that no physical force, threats, promises, or coercive tactics were used to obtain the confession,’ is prima facie evidence that the confession given while the defendant was in custody was voluntary.” State v. Johnson, 988 S.W.2d 115, 120 (Mo. App.1999) (quoting State v. Wilkinson, 861 S.W.2d 746, 750 (Mo.App.1993)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nunnerygreen1 sentence2012“The requirement that a waiver of rights be knowing and intelligent does not mean that a defendant must know and understand all of the possible consequences of the waiver.” State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo. banc 1990). “ ‘Rather, it requires that the defendant understood the warnings themselves;’ that defendant at all times knew that he or she could stand silent, could request that an attorney be present during interrogation, and that the State could and would use any statement to obtain a conviction.” State v. Nunnery, 129 S.W.3d 13, 18 (Mo.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colorado v. Spring
green
2 sentences1991Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 574-75 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 857-58 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987); State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo.1990) (en banc). 1991Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 574-75 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 857-58 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987); State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo.1990) (en banc). | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Joy v. Morrison
green
1 sentence2025“The knowing and intelligent requirement does not mean that a defendant must know and understand all the possible consequences of the waiver.” Id. (quoting State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo. banc 1990)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.