sustaining challenge in Missouri

12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1892–2003 0 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Jonesgreen mo · 1988 · cited in 7 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1991–2003 2 sentences 2003“A party asserting an abuse of discretion has the burden of showing a real probability that he was thereby prejudiced.” State v. Haley, 73 S.W.3d 746, 755 (Mo.App.2002). “[I]n cases other than those in which the range of -punishment includes the death penalty, the usual rule is ‘that error may not be predicated on the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenge.’” State v. Gray, 812 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Mo.App.1991) (quoting State v. Jones, 749 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. banc 1988)). 1995That argument was made and rejected in State v. Gray, 812 S.W.2d 935 (Mo.App.1991). “[I]n cases other than those in which the range of punishment includes the death penalty, the usual rule is ‘that error may not be predicated on the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenge.’ ” Id. at 938 (quoting State v. Jones, 749 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. banc 1988)).	6	7
State v. Graygreen moctapp · 1991 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1995–2003 2 sentences 2003“A party asserting an abuse of discretion has the burden of showing a real probability that he was thereby prejudiced.” State v. Haley, 73 S.W.3d 746, 755 (Mo.App.2002). “[I]n cases other than those in which the range of -punishment includes the death penalty, the usual rule is ‘that error may not be predicated on the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenge.’” State v. Gray, 812 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Mo.App.1991) (quoting State v. Jones, 749 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. banc 1988)). 1995That argument was made and rejected in State v. Gray, 812 S.W.2d 935 (Mo.App.1991). “[I]n cases other than those in which the range of punishment includes the death penalty, the usual rule is ‘that error may not be predicated on the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenge.’ ” Id. at 938 (quoting State v. Jones, 749 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. banc 1988)).	1	2
State v. Haleygreen moctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003“A party asserting an abuse of discretion has the burden of showing a real probability that he was thereby prejudiced.” State v. Haley, 73 S.W.3d 746, 755 (Mo.App.2002). “[I]n cases other than those in which the range of -punishment includes the death penalty, the usual rule is ‘that error may not be predicated on the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenge.’” State v. Gray, 812 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Mo.App.1991) (quoting State v. Jones, 749 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. banc 1988)).	1	1
State v. Reuschergreen mo · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996In State v. Reuscher, 827 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 837 , 113 S.Ct. 114 , 121 L.Ed.2d 71 (1992), this Court held: “When a venireperson in a case in which the death penalty may be imposed is excluded for reasons unrelated to the person’s scruples against the death penalty, the appropriate rule is that error may not be predicated upon the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenges.” The rule is based on the notion that the defendant cannot be prejudiced if indeed he or she is afforded a full panel of qual 1996In State v. Reuscher, 827 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 837 , 113 S.Ct. 114 , 121 L.Ed.2d 71 (1992), this Court held: "When a venireperson in a case in which the death penalty may be imposed is excluded for reasons unrelated to the person's scruples against the death penalty, the appropriate rule is that error may not be predicated upon the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenges." The rule is based on the notion that the defendant cannot be prejudiced if indeed he or she is afforded a full panel of qual	1	1
State v. Parrisgreen mo · 1974 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 1 sentence 1990State v. Parris, 506 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Mo.1974). 1 Illinois Central was not entitled to any particular juror or jurors.	1	1
Duensing v. Huschergreen mo · 1968 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 1 sentence 1979Again, appellant relies upon the Littell case, supra, and also upon Duensing v. Huscher, 431 S.W.2d 169, 172 (Mo.1968).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Thompson v. Louisiana green scotus · 1988 2 sentences 1992State v. Jones, 749 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871 , 109 S.Ct. 186 , 102 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (citation omitted). 1991Furthermore, in cases other than those in which the range of punishment includes the death penalty, the usual rule is “that error may not be predicated on the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenge.” State v. Jones, 749 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871 , 109 S.Ct. 186 , 102 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988).	3	1991–1992
Hunt v. Legursky green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 1996In State v. Reuscher, 827 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 837 , 113 S.Ct. 114 , 121 L.Ed.2d 71 (1992), this Court held: “When a venireperson in a case in which the death penalty may be imposed is excluded for reasons unrelated to the person’s scruples against the death penalty, the appropriate rule is that error may not be predicated upon the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenges.” The rule is based on the notion that the defendant cannot be prejudiced if indeed he or she is afforded a full panel of qual 1996In State v. Reuscher, 827 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 837 , 113 S.Ct. 114 , 121 L.Ed.2d 71 (1992), this Court held: "When a venireperson in a case in which the death penalty may be imposed is excluded for reasons unrelated to the person's scruples against the death penalty, the appropriate rule is that error may not be predicated upon the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenges." The rule is based on the notion that the defendant cannot be prejudiced if indeed he or she is afforded a full panel of qual	1	1996–1996
Meders v. Georgia green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 1996In State v. Reuscher, 827 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 837 , 113 S.Ct. 114 , 121 L.Ed.2d 71 (1992), this Court held: “When a venireperson in a case in which the death penalty may be imposed is excluded for reasons unrelated to the person’s scruples against the death penalty, the appropriate rule is that error may not be predicated upon the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenges.” The rule is based on the notion that the defendant cannot be prejudiced if indeed he or she is afforded a full panel of qual 1996In State v. Reuscher, 827 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 837 , 113 S.Ct. 114 , 121 L.Ed.2d 71 (1992), this Court held: "When a venireperson in a case in which the death penalty may be imposed is excluded for reasons unrelated to the person's scruples against the death penalty, the appropriate rule is that error may not be predicated upon the sustaining of a challenge for cause if a full panel of qualified jurors is tendered for peremptory challenges." The rule is based on the notion that the defendant cannot be prejudiced if indeed he or she is afforded a full panel of qual	1	1996–1996
Hicks v. Simonsen green · 1925 2 sentences 1963Hicks v. Simonsen, 307 Mo. 307 , 270 S.W. 318 ; Privitt v. St. 1963Hicks v. Simonsen, 307 Mo. 307 , 270 S.W. 318 ; Privitt v. St.	1	1963–1963
Murphy v. Cole green mo · 1935 2 sentences 1963It is not necessary to pursue this subject at length, the enumerated statutory disqualifications are not preclusive (Murphy v. Cole, 338 Mo. 13 , 88 S.W.2d 1023 , 103 A.L.R. 505 ) and there would have been no abuse of discretion in the court’s sustaining the challenge. 1963It is not necessary to pursue this subject at length, the enumerated statutory disqualifications are not preclusive (Murphy v. Cole, 338 Mo. 13 , 88 S.W.2d 1023 , 103 A.L.R. 505 ) and there would have been no abuse of discretion in the court’s sustaining the challenge.	1	1963–1963
Crandall v. Cooper neutral mo · 1876 1 sentence 1892Though we have been cited to and have found no case where this exact question is decided, we regard the following as sustaining the principle involved: Crandall v. Cooper, 62 Mo. 478 ; Ambrose Mfg.	1	1892–1892
Ambrose Manufacturing Co. v. Gapen green moctapp · 1886 1 sentence 1892Co. v. Gapen, 22 Mo. App. 397 ; McAdow v. Sturtevant, 41 Mo. App. 229 .	1	1892–1892

Where else courts name it

LA 87 (1927–2025) TX 23 (1913–2021) IL 17 (1971–2026) NY 15 (1889–2021) MO 12 (1892–2003) CA 9 (1917–2023) OH 8 (1970–2020) KY 5 (1922–2021) MI 4 (1898–2010) PA 3 (1922–2014) MS 3 (1973–1984) IA 2 (1893–1893) CT 2 (1903–1944) OK 2 (1930–1998) NJ 2 (1974–1999) AL 2 (1901–1926) MD 2 (1981–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check