addressed claim in Missouri

2011In State v. Estes, 743 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Mo.App.1988), the court addressed a claim that a criminal charge should be dismissed because the Highway Patrol trooper did not have statutory authority to investigate the crime.

2011In State v. Estes, 743 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Mo.App.1988), the court addressed a claim that a criminal charge should be dismissed because the Highway Patrol trooper did not have statutory authority to investigate the crime.

2004Quinn explained the constitutional basis for self-representation and what a defendant in a criminal case must demonstrate in order to exercise that right: In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), the Supreme Court of the United States was faced with the issue of “whether a defendant in a state criminal trial has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” Faretta, 95 S.Ct. at 2527 (emphasis in original).

2004Quinn explained the constitutional basis for self-representation and what a defendant in a criminal case must demonstrate in order to exercise that right: In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), the Supreme Court of the United States was faced with the issue of “whether a defendant in a state criminal trial has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” Faretta, 95 S.Ct. at 2527 (emphasis in original).

2002Mitchell v. Dalton, this Court addressed whether a hearing before the parole board was a contested case. 831 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Mo.App.

2002First, in State v. Voyles, 561 S.W.2d 697, 699 (Mo.App. 1978), the court addressed a claim "that the trial court had deprived the jury of its written instructions for seven hours." There, the court used the phrase by stating that "on the second day of trial the jury was inadvertently given only those instructions that the trial court read to them at the commencement of the trial." Id.

2002First, in State v. Voyles, 561 S.W.2d 697, 699 (Mo.App. 1978), the court addressed a claim "that the trial court had deprived the jury of its written instructions for seven hours." There, the court used the phrase by stating that "on the second day of trial the jury was inadvertently given only those instructions that the trial court read to them at the commencement of the trial." Id.

1994In Dixon v. Art Bunker Motors, Inc., 387 S.W.2d 199, 204-05 (Mo.App.1964), the court addressed the requirement of findings and held that findings are required on the essential controverted ultimate facts in order to facilitate review.

1994The court further held that even when a specific request for additional findings is made, the Commission is not obligated to make additional findings on “matters which were not the ultimate fact issues, nor a disputed controlling fact issue, nor essential to an understanding of the Commission’s award or to a judicial review of it, [nor] upon matters [where] the record is insufficient to provide a basis for determination.” Id. at 205 .

1992With reference to the right to trial by jury, Goodrum stated at 824 S.W.2d 11 [6, 7], that in De May v. Liberty Foundry Co., 327 Mo. 495 , 37 S.W.2d 640, 648-49 (1931), it was held the Workers’ Compensation Law did not violate the constitutional right to trial by jury.

1992With reference to the right to trial by jury, Goodrum stated at 824 S.W.2d 11 [6, 7], that in De May v. Liberty Foundry Co., 327 Mo. 495 , 37 S.W.2d 640, 648-49 (1931), it was held the Workers’ Compensation Law did not violate the constitutional right to trial by jury.

1992The court addressed the challenge to the Workers’ Compensation Law on the ground that it violated the open courts provision of the Constitution by stating that the Workers’ Compensation Law “is an exercise of legislative authority rationally justified by the end sought, and hence valid against the contention made here.” (quoting Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Mo. banc 1991)).