6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Gagnongreen2 sentences2023We have not addressed or decided this essential premise of Micheaux's first and second points on appeal because the premise is rendered immaterial by the fact that it is apparent on the face of this record that Micheaux did consent to appear at his guilty plea hearing by video conference. 10 Though not controlling of our decision today, it is important to note that although a defendant has a right to be present at a critical proceeding as a condition of due process, that right exists only "to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only." Un 2022A defendant has a "due process right to be present at a proceeding whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge." United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985) (internal quotations omitted). "[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only." Id. (alteration in original). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Middletongreen2 sentences2023"The focus is whether, on the whole record, the defendant could have done or gained anything by attending." State v. Middleton, 998 S.W.2d 520, 526 (Mo. banc 1999). 2003“A defendant has a ‘ “due process right to be present at a proceeding ‘whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’ ” ’ ” Id. at 526 (quoting United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 1482, 1484 , 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 380 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934)). “ ‘[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.’ ” Gagnon, 470 U.S. at | 2 | 3 |
State v. McFerrongreen2 sentences2012State v. McFerron, 890 S.W.2d 764, 768 (Mo.App. 1998A defendant’s presence is normally required if his absence would “thwart a fair and just hearing”. *239 McFerron, 890 S.W.2d at 768 . | 1 | 2 |
Kentucky v. Stincergreen2 sentences2022"The focus is whether, on the whole record, the defendant could have done or gained anything by attending." State v. Middleton, 998 S.W.2d 520, 526 (Mo. banc 1999); see also Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745-46 (1987) (holding the defendant's due process rights were not violated by his exclusion from the competency hearing of two witnesses against him because "[n]o question regarding the substantive testimony that the two girls would have given during the trial was asked at that hearing." But noting "a competency hearing in which a witness is asked to discuss upcoming substantive testimon 2022"The focus is whether, on the whole record, the defendant could have done or gained anything by attending." State v. Middleton, 998 S.W.2d 520, 526 (Mo. banc 1999); see also Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745-46 (1987) (holding the defendant's due process rights were not violated by his exclusion from the competency hearing of two witnesses against him because "[n]o question regarding the substantive testimony that the two girls would have given during the trial was asked at that hearing." But noting "a competency hearing in which a witness is asked to discuss upcoming substantive testimon | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2003“A defendant has a ‘ “due process right to be present at a proceeding ‘whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’ ” ’ ” Id. at 526 (quoting United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 1482, 1484 , 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 380 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934)). “ ‘[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.’ ” Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 2003“A defendant has a ‘ “due process right to be present at a proceeding ‘whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’ ” ’ ” Id. at 526 (quoting United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 1482, 1484 , 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 380 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934)). “ ‘[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.’ ” Gagnon, 470 U.S. at | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.