test instruction in Missouri

1976But it was also stated: “The test of whether an instruction on a lesser, included offense is required is whether ‘the evidence shows that a defendant may not be guilty of the offense charged (stealing), but may be guilty of an offense (tampering) necessarily embraced in the charge.’ State v. Leigh, 466 S.W.2d 685 [2] (Mo.1971). ‘Before instructions on the lesser or included offenses are compelled, however, there must be evidentiary support for such offenses.’ State v. Washington, 357 S.W.2d 92 [6—8] (Mo.1962).

1975The test of whether an instruction on a lesser, included offense is required is whether “the evidence shows that a defendant may not be guilty of the offense charged (stealing), but may be guilty of an offense (tampering) necessarily embraced in the charge.” State v. Leigh, 466 S.W.2d 685 [2] (Mo.1971).

2023Id. at 498 .

2017Jones Const., 168 S.W.3d 488, 498 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) ("The test is whether the instruction follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.”). .

2020“The test is whether the instruction follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.” Alhalabi v. Mo. Dep’t of Natural Res., 300 S.W.3d 518, 527 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).

2011“The test is whether the instruction follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.” Id.

2014Relations Comm’n, 840 S.W.2d 273, 275-76 (Mo.App.W.D.1992) (when the commission finds the parties equally credible, it must resolve the issue in favor of the non-burden-carrying party); Gamble v. Hoffman, 695 S.W.2d 503, 507 (Mo.App.W.D.1985) (“An administrative agency or board may weigh testimony and choose to believe or disbelieve all or part of it, but it may not set up a test or standard for credibility which requires the party not having the burden of proof to establish the incredibility of the witness for the party having the burden of proof.”).

2014Relations Comm’n, 840 S.W.2d 273, 275-76 (Mo.App.W.D.1992) (when the commission finds the parties equally credible, it must resolve the issue in favor of the non-burden-carrying party); Gamble v. Hoffman, 695 S.W.2d 503, 507 (Mo.App.W.D.1985) (“An administrative agency or board may weigh testimony and choose to believe or disbelieve all or part of it, but it may not set up a test or standard for credibility which requires the party not having the burden of proof to establish the incredibility of the witness for the party having the burden of proof.”).

2008See City of Mexico v. Salmons, 514 S.W.2d 102, 104 (Mo.App.1974) (stating, “While we do not have a slide-rule formula to determine reasonable necessity, we do consider certain criteria material.

2002M.C. v. Yeargin, 11 S.W.3d 604, 616 (Mo.App.

2002M.C. v. Yeargin, 11 S.W.3d 604, 616 (Mo.App.

2000In Shock , the test for applying the doctrine was characterized by the supreme court in terms of whether the predicate felony was “collateral” to the homicide in that the “acts of personal violence to the deceased ... [were] necessary and constituent elements of the homicide itself.” Shock, 68 Mo. at 561 (emphasis added).

2000See: State v. Dexter, 954 S.W.2d 332, 340 (Mo. banc 1997). 15 .

2000Within Rule 70.02(b), the test is whether the instruction “follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.” Lashmet v. McQueary, 954 S.W.2d 546, 550 (Mo. App. S.D.1997).

1999Instead, the test for the sufficiency of an indictment or information is “whether it contains all the essential elements of the offense as set out in the statute creating the offense.” State v. Hyler, 861 S.W.2d 646, 649 (Mo.App.1993).

1994Karnes v. Ray, 809 S.W.2d 738, 740 (Mo.App.1991).

1989Camillo v. State, 757 S.W.2d 234, 242 (Mo.App., W.D.1988).

1983State v. Sturgell, 530 S.W.2d 737, 739 [4] (Mo.App.1975).

1982Hawkins v. Great Central Insurance Co., 509 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Mo.App.1974); McCory v. Knowles, 478 S.W.2d 682, 686 (Mo.App.1972).

1982Hawkins v. Great Central Insurance Co., 509 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Mo.App.1974); McCory v. Knowles, 478 S.W.2d 682, 686 (Mo.App.1972).

1982In State v. Jones, 558 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Mo.App.1977), the court stated, “the test of error ... is whether or not the trial court’s remarks may have prejudiced the minds of the jury, depriving the defendant of his right to a fair trial.” Our examination of the record reveals no prejudice to the defendant.

1979Bartleman v. Humphrey, 441 S.W.2d 335, 348 (Mo.1969).

1979The test is whether the instruction is substantially correct, Stahlheber v. America Cyanamid Co., 451 S.W.2d 48, 62 (Mo.1970) and the court should consider the meaning of the instruction to a jury rather than resort to hypertechnical requirements of grammatical perfection and the use of certain words.

1977State v. Hill, 518 S.W.2d 682, 685 [6 — 9] (Mo.App.1975); State v. Ross, 371 S.W.2d 224, 228 [7, 8] (Mo.1963).

1977State v. Hill, 518 S.W.2d 682, 685 [6 — 9] (Mo.App.1975); State v. Ross, 371 S.W.2d 224, 228 [7, 8] (Mo.1963).

1976See also State v. Walker, 505 S.W.2d 119 [5—8] (Mo.App.1973).