61 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1885–2023 1 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. Bryangreen2 sentences2019The Southern District has held a witness’ testimony during a prior judicial proceeding that he or she will be in a foreign country for a lengthy duration and will be out of the country during trial “obviate[s] the requirement . . . to show a ‘good faith effort to obtain the presence of the witness at the hearing or trial.’” State v. Bryan, 60 S.W.3d 713, 718 (Mo. App. 8 “[O]ut-of-state appellate decisions do not constitute controlling precedent in Missouri courts.” Grillo v. Glob. 2007In rejecting the defendant’s argument, we explained that “[t]his testimony obviated the requirement of Rule 25.15 [now Rule 25.16] to show a ‘good faith effort to obtain the presence of the witness at the hearing or trial.’ ” Id. | 1 | 2 |
State of Missouri v. Joseph Simmonsgreen1 sentence2023Mother (through counsel) did not object to invoking the rule or closing the hearing. 3 Child’s paternal grandmother (“Grandmother”) was called as a witness at the hearing by J.E.S., Child’s father (“Father”) and testified she had been approved for a 3 “Under the [witness exclusionary] rule, a court may order witnesses excluded from the courtroom so that they will not be privy to the testimony of other witnesses.” Burns v. Taylor, 589 S.W.3d 614 , 623 (Mo.App. 2019) (quoting State v. Simmons, 515 S.W.3d 769, 774 (Mo.App. 2017)). 4 home study and wished to adopt Child or serve as guardian. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence2019See id.; see also Miller, 250 S.W.3d at 743 . | 1 | 1 |
Carbaugh v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Movant acknowledges, however, that “[a] guilty plea that is voluntary and knowing waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses.” Carbaugh v. State, 348 S.W.3d 871, 876 (Mo.App.S.D.2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Simontongreen1 sentence2015See Simonton, 49 S.W.3d at 783-85 (finding defendant was prejudiced from the exclusion of a doctor’s testimony even though it may have been cumulative to that of another doctor because the excluded witness’s testimony was more significant and- could have affected the outcome of the case).- M.L. was a vital witness not only because she was the only witness for the defense, but also because she was in the unique position of having relationships with all of the principal players involved in this case—she was a possibly intimate friend of Feldman, the person who shot and killed Jerry and shot Jame | 1 | 1 |
Slater v. Stategreen1 sentence2013However, the decision whether to testify “is a personal right of the defendant that cannot be made by counsel.” Slater v. State, 147 S.W.3d 97, 101 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Deweygreen1 sentence2006State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479, 493 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Dewey, 86 S.W.3d 434, 439 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brooksgreen1 sentence2006State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479, 493 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Dewey, 86 S.W.3d 434, 439 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Morrow v. Stategreen1 sentence2002As noted in Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d 819, 822-23 (Mo. banc 2000), an evidentiary hearing is not required where the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that movant is entitled to no relief. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2001Additionally, we note that during the course of the deposition Smith testified that he was to “go to Germany for a couple of weeks [for deployment] off of Kosovo.” This testimony obviated the requirement of Rule 25.15 to show a “good faith effort to obtain the presence of the witness at the hearing or trial.” See also State v. Taylor, 742 S.W.2d 625, 628 (Mo. App.1988); State v. Lindsay, 709 S.W.2d 499, 505 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lindsaygreen1 sentence2001Additionally, we note that during the course of the deposition Smith testified that he was to “go to Germany for a couple of weeks [for deployment] off of Kosovo.” This testimony obviated the requirement of Rule 25.15 to show a “good faith effort to obtain the presence of the witness at the hearing or trial.” See also State v. Taylor, 742 S.W.2d 625, 628 (Mo. App.1988); State v. Lindsay, 709 S.W.2d 499, 505 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Larry Klepal, as Administrator of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Larry Klepal, Deceased v. Pennsylvania Railroad Companygreen1 sentence1992Corporation v. Uranium Aire, Inc., 311 F.2d 749, 754-755 (9th Cir.1962) (admission of deposition was error, but insufficient for reversal); Klepal v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 229 F.2d 610, 612 (2nd Cir.1956) (admission of deposition after appearance of deponent as a witness was error, but harmless in a court-tried case; dicta only). | 1 | 1 |
G.E.J. Corporation and M.F. Corporation v. Uranium Aire, Inc., a Corporationgreen1 sentence1992Corporation v. Uranium Aire, Inc., 311 F.2d 749, 754-755 (9th Cir.1962) (admission of deposition was error, but insufficient for reversal); Klepal v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 229 F.2d 610, 612 (2nd Cir.1956) (admission of deposition after appearance of deponent as a witness was error, but harmless in a court-tried case; dicta only). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Moutraygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fostergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Byrdgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Colemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio v. Robertsred | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lynchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wolfegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Scottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Talleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Humphrey v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thostgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Shepardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bagbygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Namet v. United States
green
2 sentences1988However, when there is a reasonable expectation that the witness will provide some legitimate testimony in addition to invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, or when there is some question as to whether the witness will invoke this privilege at all, the court may require the witness to take the stand, Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179 , 83 S.Ct. 1151 , 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963); Wright, 582 S.W.2d at 282-83 , and it is not error for the court to require the witness to claim the privilege against self-incrimination in the presence of the jury. 1988However, when there is a reasonable expectation that the witness will provide some legitimate testimony in addition to invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, or when there is some question as to whether the witness will invoke this privilege at all, the court may require the witness to take the stand, Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179 , 83 S.Ct. 1151 , 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963); Wright, 582 S.W.2d at 282-83 , and it is not error for the court to require the witness to claim the privilege against self-incrimination in the presence of the jury. | 3 | 1983–1992 |
State v. Yager
green
2 sentences1979The court of appeals held it was not improper, under Missouri practice, for the court to require a witness to claim the privilege against incrimination in the presence of the jury, citing State v. Phillips, 511 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.1974), and State v. Yager, 416 S.W.2d 170 (Mo.1967). 1978State v. Phillips, 511 S.W.2d 841 .(Mo. 1974); State v. Yager, 416 S.W.2d 170 (Mo. 1967). | 3 | 1974–1979 |
In the Interest of J.M.B.
green
2 sentences1997In 939 S.W.2d at 56 , counsel did not request a continuance or recess to secure the absent mother’s presence; did not raise a single objection during direct examination of the only witness at the hearing; limited cross-examination to a dozen questions, only three of which concerned the crucial issue at the hearing; offered no evidence, argument or explanation on behalf of the mother; and stated his belief, as the mother’s GAL, that her parental rights should be terminated. 1997In J.M.B., 939 S.W.2d at 56 , counsel did not request a continuance or recess to secure the absent mother's presence; did not raise a single objection during direct examination of the only witness at the hearing; limited cross-examination to a dozen questions, only three of which concerned the crucial issue at the hearing; offered no evidence, argument or explanation on behalf of the mother; and stated his belief, as the mother's GAL, that her parental rights should be terminated. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Wright
green
2 sentences1988Id. at 282 . 1988However, when there is a reasonable expectation that the witness will provide some legitimate testimony in addition to invoking his privilege against self-incrimination, or when there is some question as to whether the witness will invoke this privilege at all, the court may require the witness to take the stand, Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179 , 83 S.Ct. 1151 , 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963); Wright, 582 S.W.2d at 282-83 , and it is not error for the court to require the witness to claim the privilege against self-incrimination in the presence of the jury. | 2 | 1983–1988 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences1979The court of appeals held it was not improper, under Missouri practice, for the court to require a witness to claim the privilege against incrimination in the presence of the jury, citing State v. Phillips, 511 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.1974), and State v. Yager, 416 S.W.2d 170 (Mo.1967). 1978State v. Phillips, 511 S.W.2d 841 .(Mo. 1974); State v. Yager, 416 S.W.2d 170 (Mo. 1967). | 2 | 1978–1979 |
Whiteley v. CITY OF POPLAR BLUFF
green
1 sentence2017"When matters referenced as alleged error in a point relied on are not developed in the argument portion of a brief, they are deemed abandoned.” Whiteley v. City of Poplar Bluff, 350 S.W.3d 70 , 77 n. 4 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kuehne v. State
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences2003In support of his argument, appellant relies on In re Johnson v. State, 58 S.W.3d 496 (Mo.banc 2001), where our Missouri Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting an associate psychologist from the Department of Corrections as an expert to testify at trial as to his diagnoses of a sex offender, Id. at 499 , in that while the associate psychologist’s experience treating sex offenders conceivably would qualify him to testify as an expert on many issues, diagnoses of mental disorders is not even arguably within his area of expertise, and his testimony at that po 2003In support of his argument, appellant relies on In re Johnson v. State, 58 S.W.3d 496 (Mo.banc 2001), where our Missouri Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting an associate psychologist from the Department of Corrections as an expert to testify at trial as to his diagnoses of a sex offender, Id. at 499 , in that while the associate psychologist’s experience treating sex offenders conceivably would qualify him to testify as an expert on many issues, diagnoses of mental disorders is not even arguably within his area of expertise, and his testimony at that po | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Shay
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 801 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Buck
neutral
1 sentence2000State v. Buck, 954 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.App.E.D.1997). 1 On May 9, 1996, Buck was charged by information with two counts of tampering with a witness in violation of Section 575.270.1 RSMo 1994 2 in connection with the burglary and stealing trial. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Cottrill
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 379 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Kelly Ex Rel. Kelly v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1995Kelly by Kelly, 798 S.W.2d at 701 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence1992In State v. Smith, 824 S.W.2d 127 (Mo.App.1992), our sister court in the Southern District extended the rationale of Antwine to hold that it is permissible to use a defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence to impeach the testimony of a witness for the defense. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Sidebottom
green
1 sentence1992Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179,187-189 , 83 S.Ct. 1151, 1155-1156 , 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963); Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d at 922 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Webb v. Texas
green
2 sentences1992It held: In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the judge’s threatening remarks, directed only at the single witness for the defense, effectively drove that witness off the stand, and thus deprived the petitioner of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2 409 U.S. at 98 , 93 S.Ct. at 353 . 1992It held: In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the judge’s threatening remarks, directed only at the single witness for the defense, effectively drove that witness off the stand, and thus deprived the petitioner of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2 409 U.S. at 98 , 93 S.Ct. at 353 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Briscoe v. LaHue
green
2 sentences1992The Supreme Court in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. at 331 , 103 S.Ct. at 1113 , referred to three English common law cases, which are generally cited as the seminal cases establishing the doctrine of witness immunity: Cutler v. Dixon, 4 Co.Rep. 14b, 76 Eng.Rep. 886 (Q.B.1585); Anfield v. Feverhill, 2 Bulst. 269, 80 Eng.Rep. 1113 (K.B.1614); and Henderson v. Broomhead, 4 H & N 569, 157 Eng.Rep. 964, 968 (Ex.1859). 1992The Supreme Court in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. at 331 , 103 S.Ct. at 1113 , referred to three English common law cases, which are generally cited as the seminal cases establishing the doctrine of witness immunity: Cutler v. Dixon, 4 Co.Rep. 14b, 76 Eng.Rep. 886 (Q.B.1585); Anfield v. Feverhill, 2 Bulst. 269, 80 Eng.Rep. 1113 (K.B.1614); and Henderson v. Broomhead, 4 H & N 569, 157 Eng.Rep. 964, 968 (Ex.1859). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Gibson green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Street green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Ellis green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Holt green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| State v. Cross green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Chambers v. Maroney green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Spidle green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Pulis green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Wright green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Massa green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Dunn green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Summers green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Wendling v. Bowden green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| United States v. Coffey green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Emspak v. United States green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Dyer v. Morris neutral | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| State v. Hepperman green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| State v. Howard neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Holden v. Berberich green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| State v. Pine green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| State v. Menz green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Ridley v. Railroad neutral | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| State v. Burks neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.