understanding waiver in Missouri

2017Instead, the Court held that although the defendant’s right to a jury trial likely had been denied because the trial court should have conducted a more thorough examination to determine the defendant’s understanding of his waiver of the right to a trial by jury, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed because the defendant’s admission to selling crack was “sufficient to remove any concern that the waiver of the jury trial resulted in prejudice to [him].” Id.

2006Id.

2017In Martin , the defendant was charged with aggravated stalking and admitted that he made threatening phone calls to the victim, was physically violent toward her, and that her belief that he could become violent was reasonable. 940 S.W.2d at 8 .

2014The notice of dismissal simply “must be sufficiently specific as to the time and nature of the incident at issue so that the employee has no uncertainty as to the acts related to [his] discharge.” Dunlap, 103 S.W.3d at 790 .

1992The limitation on multiple punishments for the same offense in a single prosecution has been defined in Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983). 3 The arguments of the parties in this case center upon the identification of what conduct constitutes a separate or single offense.

1992The limitation on multiple punishments for the same offense in a single prosecution has been defined in Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983). 3 The arguments of the parties in this case center upon the identification of what conduct constitutes a separate or single offense.

1918In the case of Tong v. Orr, 44 Ind. App. 681 , the plaintiff was employed as attorney to prosecute a suit for a certain stipulated compensation, the understanding being that the defense would be merely formal.

1910So it has been ruled in a case constantly cited with approval that exceptions must be saved to each specific ruling in the progress of the trial. [Harrison v. Bartlett, 51 Mo. 170 .] In that case it was stated at the foot of the bill of exceptions “that to all the rulings, orders and.judgment of the court the defendant excepted,” and it was held to be no proper exception.

1898Such is unquestionably the understanding of the bar, and such was undoubtedly the thought of the supreme court in Mills v. Thomson, 61 Mo. 415 ; and of this court in Engine Co. v. Glazier, 55 Mo. App. 95 , though the point now made was not before the court and was not considered in either of those cases.

1898Such is unquestionably the understanding of the bar, and such was undoubtedly the thought of the supreme court in Mills v. Thomson, 61 Mo. 415 ; and of this court in Engine Co. v. Glazier, 55 Mo. App. 95 , though the point now made was not before the court and was not considered in either of those cases.