7 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1975–1992 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 |
|---|---|---|
Storm v. Ford Motor Companygreen2 sentences1992Storm v. Ford Motor Co., 526 S.W.2d 875, 878 (Mo.App.1975). 1987The chain of custody doctrine as a principle of proof does not require an account for “ ‘[the] hand to hand custody of the evidence from the time it is obtained to the time it is admitted into evidence, nor does it need to be continually watched.’ ” Storm v. Ford Motor Company, 526 S.W.2d 875, 878 (Mo.App.1975) (quoting State v. Day, 506 S.W.2d 497, 502 (Mo.App.1974)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rosegreen1 sentence1989The purpose of the chain of custody requirement is to prevent tampering or alteration of exhibits or any substitution.” State v. Rose, 428 S.W.2d 737, 740 (Mo.1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Daygreen1 sentence1987The chain of custody doctrine as a principle of proof does not require an account for “ ‘[the] hand to hand custody of the evidence from the time it is obtained to the time it is admitted into evidence, nor does it need to be continually watched.’ ” Storm v. Ford Motor Company, 526 S.W.2d 875, 878 (Mo.App.1975) (quoting State v. Day, 506 S.W.2d 497, 502 (Mo.App.1974)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mangangreen1 sentence1986State v. Mangan, 624 S.W.2d 156, 157 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ashleygreen1 sentence1984In order for a proper chain of custody to be established in a case of this nature, it is not necessary that the state’s evidence rule out “every possibility of disturbed possession.” State v. Ashley, 616 S.W.2d 556, 561 (Mo.App.1981).' The purpose of the chain of custody requirement is to show the thing placed in evidence at the trial is in the same condition as it was when it was first obtained. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence1984For this purpose to be fulfilled, it is not necessary “to exclude every possibility of alteration or tampering, nor need [the state] show that some credible witness retained the exhibit in his personal possession under constant watch.” State v. Robinson, 595 S.W.2d 9, 12 (Mo. App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hardygreen1 sentence1980See, State v. Roper, 591 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Hardy, 568 S.W.2d 86, 87 (Mo.App.1978); State v. McClain, 536 S.W.2d 45, 47 (Mo.App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ropergreen1 sentence1980See, State v. Roper, 591 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Hardy, 568 S.W.2d 86, 87 (Mo.App.1978); State v. McClain, 536 S.W.2d 45, 47 (Mo.App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McClaingreen1 sentence1980See, State v. Roper, 591 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Hardy, 568 S.W.2d 86, 87 (Mo.App.1978); State v. McClain, 536 S.W.2d 45, 47 (Mo.App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nolangreen1 sentence1975The criminal decisions of our state have postulated the rule that a chain of evidence is sufficiently traced where the circumstances show a “reasonable assurance that the [object] was the same and in the same condition.” State v. Smith, 222 S.W. 455 , 458[5] (Mo.1920); State v. Nolan, 499 S.W.2d 240, 251 [10, 11] (Mo.App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.