Bridgewater v. State, 533 S.W.3d 742 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Bridgewater v. State, 533 S.W.3d 742 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“missouri courts have considered numerous cases where the state was alleged to have misstated the law during closing arguments and found no manifest injustice based on the jury having been properly instructed on the law by the trial court.”
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ELMER ANTONIO NIETO (moctapp, 2024-05-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ELMER ANTONIO NIETO
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
missouri courts have considered numerous cases where the state was alleged to have misstated the law during closing arguments and found no manifest injustice based on the jury having been properly instructed on the law by the trial court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Drew Ryland v. State of Missouri (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
State v. Ryland, 533 S.W.3d 742, 745 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). 1 Mr. Ryland timely filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or sentence under Rule 29.15 on March 16, 2018.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Carter
Mo. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ryland , 533 S.W.3d 742 , 751 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) ("A ruling on a motion in limine is interlocutory and subject to modification at trial ... [Thus, i]n order to preserve a claim relating to a motion in limine , the proponent must attempt to present the excluded evidence at trial and, if it remains excluded, make a sufficient offer of proof." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) ).
Adam D. BRIDGEWATER
v.
STATE of Missouri
WD 79816.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Sep 26, 2017.
533 S.W.3d 742
Damien De Loyola, Kansas, City, Missouri, Counsel for Appellant., Robert Bartholomew, Jr., Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.
Ahuja, Cynthia, Martin, Newton.
Published

ORDER

Per Curiam:

Mr. Adam D. Bridgewater appeals the Vernon County Circuit Court judgment denying his post-conviction motion, following a reopened evidentiary hearing on remand from this Court on a recall of the mandate in Bridgewater v. State, 458 S.W.3d 430 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).