suggestion defense in Missouri

1985This is not a case where the court’s comment was prompted by a question from the jury; or by a suggestion from defense counsel, addressed to the attorneys, and with the purpose of making the written record clear, as in State v. Brookshire, 353 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 67 , 83 S.Ct. 155 , 9 L.Ed.2d 119 .

1985This is not a case where the court’s comment was prompted by a question from the jury; or by a suggestion from defense counsel, addressed to the attorneys, and with the purpose of making the written record clear, as in State v. Brookshire, 353 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 67 , 83 S.Ct. 155 , 9 L.Ed.2d 119 .

1985This is not a case where the court’s comment was prompted by a question from the jury; or by a suggestion from defense counsel, addressed to the attorneys, and with the purpose of making the written record clear, as in State v. Brookshire, 353 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 67 , 83 S.Ct. 155 , 9 L.Ed.2d 119 .

1985This is not a case where the court’s comment was prompted by a question from the jury; or by a suggestion from defense counsel, addressed to the attorneys, and with the purpose of making the written record clear, as in State v. Brookshire, 353 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 67 , 83 S.Ct. 155 , 9 L.Ed.2d 119 .

1973The court, in Straughan v. Asher, Mo.App., 372 S.W.2d 489, at p. 494 , discussed that trend as follows: “This view proceeds upon the compelling argument that if one accepts the basic premise or basis for the exception to be that, human nature being what it is, a statement asserting a fact distinctly against one’s interest is so likely to be true that testimony as to that statement should be admitted, then it is illogical to require the one making the statement to be unavailable before the truthful statement can be heard.” The reasoning which affords the basis for admitting an admission against

1911The meaning of words in common use and which have no special technical meaning in the connection in which they are used in an instruction need not be explained to the jury. [Holland v. McCarty, 24 Mo. App. 112 ; Warder v. Henry, 117 Mo. 530 , 23 S. W. 776 .] It is said, too, this instruction is erroneous for the reason that it permitted the jury to find for plaintiff under the hypothesis therein contained, if a powerful current of electricity, which occasioned Clonts’ death, entered his body from the tiller rope by reason of “the negligence of defendant as defined in this and other instruction

1911The meaning of words in common use and which have no special technical meaning in the connection in which they are used in an instruction need not be explained to the jury. [Holland v. McCarty, 24 Mo. App. 112 ; Warder v. Henry, 117 Mo. 530 , 23 S. W. 776 .] It is said, too, this instruction is erroneous for the reason that it permitted the jury to find for plaintiff under the hypothesis therein contained, if a powerful current of electricity, which occasioned Clonts’ death, entered his body from the tiller rope by reason of “the negligence of defendant as defined in this and other instruction

1911The meaning of words in common use and which have no special technical meaning in the connection in which they are used in an instruction need not be explained to the jury. [Holland v. McCarty, 24 Mo. App. 112 ; Warder v. Henry, 117 Mo. 530 , 23 S. W. 776 .] It is said, too, this instruction is erroneous for the reason that it permitted the jury to find for plaintiff under the hypothesis therein contained, if a powerful current of electricity, which occasioned Clonts’ death, entered his body from the tiller rope by reason of “the negligence of defendant as defined in this and other instruction

1911Co. v. Lacey, 94 Va. 460, 475 .] To the suggestion that the rule ought not to obtain with respect, to automobiles, for the reason the extraordinary dangers Avhich inhere in a railroad crossing are not always present with respect .to such conveyances, we answer the conceded facts of the case disclose a situation almost, if not fully, as dangerous to a reckless driver, for the proof is, that besides the roadway being narrow and secluded and the view of plaintiff’s chauffeur obscured beyond thirty to thirty-five feet by thick foliage around the sharp curve, automobiles were constantly passing in