11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2017 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davidsongreen2 sentences2002Assuming, arguendo, that the Chambers Court believed it important that the declarant in that case was available to testify, the court in Guinn stated that it “might be persuaded by the State’s argument but for its candid acknowledgment that the Missouri Supreme Court described ‘unavailability’ as an element of the Chambers rule.” Guinn at 545 (citing State v. Davidson, 982 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Mo. banc 1998)). 2002Assuming, arguendo, that the Chambers Court believed it important that the declarant in that case was available to testify, the court in Guinn stated that it “might be persuaded by the State’s argument but for its candid acknowledgment that the Missouri Supreme Court described ‘unavailability’ as an element of the Chambers rule.” Guinn at 545 (citing State v. Davidson, 982 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Mo. banc 1998)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences2017See Reed , 282 S.W.3d at 837 . 2017See Reed , 282 S.W.3d at 837 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moadgreen1 sentence2014“Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” State v. Mood, 398 S.W.3d 904, 905 (Mo.App.W.D.2013). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Danbackgreen2 sentences2002W.D.1981); State v. Danback, 886 S.W.2d 204, 208 (Mo.App. 2002W.D.1981); State v. Danback, 886 S.W.2d 204, 208 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guinngreen2 sentences2002Assuming, arguendo, that the Chambers Court believed it important that the declarant in that case was available to testify, the court in Guinn stated that it “might be persuaded by the State’s argument but for its candid acknowledgment that the Missouri Supreme Court described ‘unavailability’ as an element of the Chambers rule.” Guinn at 545 (citing State v. Davidson, 982 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Mo. banc 1998)). 2002Assuming, arguendo, that the Chambers Court believed it important that the declarant in that case was available to testify, the court in Guinn stated that it “might be persuaded by the State’s argument but for its candid acknowledgment that the Missouri Supreme Court described ‘unavailability’ as an element of the Chambers rule.” Guinn at 545 (citing State v. Davidson, 982 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Mo. banc 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dodsongreen2 sentences1995The motion court denied Chambers’ motion, stating: “I find the testimony of Witness Overton credible and that of Witness Rector not credible.” Chambers argues that the alleged juror misconduct violated constitutional rights and § 517.020(2) RSMo 1986, which permits a new trial when the jury “has been guilty of any misconduct tending to prevent a fair and due consideration of the case.” Juror misconduct during trial requires a new trial “unless the state affirmatively shows that the jurors were not subject to improper influences.” State v. Babb, 680 S.W.2d 150, 151 (Mo. banc 1984), quoting Stat 1995The motion court denied Chambers’ motion, stating: “I find the testimony of Witness Overton credible and that of Witness Rector not credible.” Chambers argues that the alleged juror misconduct violated constitutional rights and § 517.020(2) RSMo 1986, which permits a new trial when the jury “has been guilty of any misconduct tending to prevent a fair and due consideration of the case.” Juror misconduct during trial requires a new trial “unless the state affirmatively shows that the jurors were not subject to improper influences.” State v. Babb, 680 S.W.2d 150, 151 (Mo. banc 1984), quoting Stat | 1 | 1 |
State v. Babbgreen1 sentence1995The motion court denied Chambers’ motion, stating: “I find the testimony of Witness Overton credible and that of Witness Rector not credible.” Chambers argues that the alleged juror misconduct violated constitutional rights and § 517.020(2) RSMo 1986, which permits a new trial when the jury “has been guilty of any misconduct tending to prevent a fair and due consideration of the case.” Juror misconduct during trial requires a new trial “unless the state affirmatively shows that the jurors were not subject to improper influences.” State v. Babb, 680 S.W.2d 150, 151 (Mo. banc 1984), quoting Stat | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edmondsongreen2 sentences1984Cf. State v. Edmondson, 461 S.W.2d 713, 723-24 (Mo. 1971). 1984Cf. State v. Edmondson, 461 S.W.2d 713, 723-24 (Mo. 1971). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence1977See also Thomas v. State, 548 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. banc 1977), reaffirming the Chambers’ rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Weems
green
2 sentences2016Defendant’s account of the events here, however improbable when considered in light of the contrary evidence presented by the State, see Weems, 840 S.W.2d at 227 , was nevertheless evidence that put each of the section 563.031 self-defense elements at issue, as set out in Defendant’s proffered self-defense Instruction A, and that put the four Thomas/Chambers factors at issue. 2016Defendant’s account of the events here, however improbable when considered in light of the contrary evidence presented by the State, see Weems, 840 S.W.2d at 227 , was nevertheless evidence that put each of the section 563.031 self-defense elements at issue, as set out in Defendant’s proffered self-defense Instruction A, and that put the four Thomas/Chambers factors at issue. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Carroll
green
2 sentences2002The court also noted, as have we, the “long line of post-Turner decisions by the intermediate appellate districts that have ... universally declared that unavailability is a[sic] element for application of the Chambers doctrine.” Id. at 544 (citing State v. Carroll, 629 S.W.2d 483, 485 , 486 n. 2 (Mo.App. 2002The court also noted, as have we, the “long line of post-Turner decisions by the intermediate appellate districts that have ... universally declared that unavailability is a[sic] element for application of the Chambers doctrine.” Id. at 544 (citing State v. Carroll, 629 S.W.2d 483, 485 , 486 n. 2 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Turner
green
2 sentences2001He asserts that the Chambers rule was adopted in Missouri in State v. Turner, 623 S.W.2d 4 (Mo. banc 1981). 2001He asserts that the Chambers rule was adopted in Missouri in State v. Turner, 623 S.W.2d 4 (Mo. banc 1981). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2000The statement was made spontaneously and to a close acquaintance, thus satisfying the first prong of the Chambers test. 410 U.S. at 300 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 . 2000The statement was made spontaneously and to a close acquaintance, thus satisfying the first prong of the Chambers test. 410 U.S. at 300 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Chambers
green
2 sentences1994The phrase “including damages for care, loss of services or death,” is set off by commas and functions to explain by example the term “all damages.” The participle “sustained” immediately follows “bodily injury,” indicating its function is to modify “bodily injury” and not “all damages.” Because no comma follows “bodily injury,” the entire phrase “arising out of ‘bodily injury 1 sustained by any one person in any one auto accident” is to be treated as a unit, as one phrase that modifies “all damages.” See Chambers, 860 S.W.2d at 21 . 1994The phrase “including damages for care, loss of services or death,” is set off by commas and functions to explain by example the term “all damages.” The participle “sustained” immediately follows “bodily injury,” indicating its function is to modify “bodily injury” and not “all damages.” Because no comma follows “bodily injury,” the entire phrase “arising out of ‘bodily injury 1 sustained by any one person in any one auto accident” is to be treated as a unit, as one phrase that modifies “all damages.” See Chambers, 860 S.W.2d at 21 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.