claim of trial error (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

claim of trial error in Missouri

9 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2015 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Cartergreen
mo · 1997 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2005–2009
2 sentences

2009See State v. Carter, 955 S.W.2d 548, 555 (Mo. banc 1997) (“The state’s alleged failure to comply with [a] discovery request is a claim of trial error, which is outside the scope of a Rule 29.15 motion.

2005Rule 29.15(a) permits a person convicted of a felony to set forth claims that the conviction and sentence “violates the constitution and laws of this state or the constitution of the United States.” However, Rule 29.15 is not a substitute for direct appeal, and this Court has held that “the state’s alleged failure to comply with [mov-ant’s] discovery request is a claim of trial error, which is outside the scope of a Rule 29.15 motion.” State v. Carter, 955 S.W.2d 548, 555 (Mo. banc 1997).

33
Johnston v. Johnstongreen
moctapp · 1978 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1995–2015
2 sentences

2015In re Marriage of Osborne, 895 S.W.2d at 289 (citing Johnston v. Johnston, 573 S.W.2d 406, 411 (Mo.App. 1978)).

1995Johnston, 573 S.W.2d at 411 [3].

22
In Re Marriage of Osbornegreen
moctapp · 1995 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2004–2015
2 sentences

2004Within the judgment at issue in this case, in addition to finding that Appellants were in default, the trial court indicated that the cause was “taken up and heard and submitted to the [e]ourt upon the pleadings and evidence.... ” “At the request of either party, the proceedings at the trial level should be recorded, preserved and included in the transcript on appeal where necessary to present a claim of trial error.” In re Marriage of Osborne, 895 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.App.1995).

2004Within the judgment at issue in this case, in addition to finding that Appellants were in default, the trial court indicated that the cause was "taken up and heard and submitted to the [c]ourt upon the pleadings and evidence...." "At the request of either party, the proceedings at the trial level should be recorded, preserved and included in the transcript on appeal where necessary to present a claim of trial error." In re Marriage of Osborne, 895 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo.App.1995).

12
Parker v. Arkansasgreen
scotus · 1990 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997See Schneider v. State, 787 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 882 , 111 S.Ct. 231 , 112 L.Ed.2d 186 (1990); Burgin v. State, 847 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Mo.App.1992), and State v. White, 790 S.W.2d 467, 474-75 (Mo.App.1990).

11
State v. Whitegreen
moctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997See Schneider v. State, 787 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 882 , 111 S.Ct. 231 , 112 L.Ed.2d 186 (1990); Burgin v. State, 847 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Mo.App.1992), and State v. White, 790 S.W.2d 467, 474-75 (Mo.App.1990).

11
Burgin v. Stategreen
moctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997See Schneider v. State, 787 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 882 , 111 S.Ct. 231 , 112 L.Ed.2d 186 (1990); Burgin v. State, 847 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Mo.App.1992), and State v. White, 790 S.W.2d 467, 474-75 (Mo.App.1990).

11
Schneider v. Stategreen
mo · 1990 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997See Schneider v. State, 787 S.W.2d 718, 721 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 882 , 111 S.Ct. 231 , 112 L.Ed.2d 186 (1990); Burgin v. State, 847 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Mo.App.1992), and State v. White, 790 S.W.2d 467, 474-75 (Mo.App.1990).

11
Cook v. Stategreen
mo · 1974 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
1 sentence

1975Cook v. State, 511 S.W.2d 819, 820 [2] (Mo.1974).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Clarke Dexter Weems green
ca9 · 1995
1 sentence

2012On this point, United States v. Weems, 49 F.3d 528 (9th Cir.1995), is instructive.

12012–2012

Where else courts name it

AR 14 (2014–2025) IL 13 (1999–2025) MO 9 (1975–2015) TX 8 (1987–2015) PA 6 (1998–2020) IN 4 (2009–2019) MN 2 (1987–2014) MD 2 (1999–2005) LA 2 (2023–2024) CA 2 (2004–2023)

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