State v. Dunn

21 Citing cases

  1. State v. Jordan

    627 S.W.2d 290 (Mo. 1982)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the right to a fair and impartial trial is a substantial right within the meaning of the plain error rule

    Thus, informing the jury of a co-defendant's plea during voir dire is probably more damaging than the same statement during opening argument. In State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.App. 1981), during voir dire the prosecutor was attempting to prepare the jury for a co-defendant's appearance as a witness for the state and to determine the effect his plea-bargain would have upon his credibility by disclosing the plea and plea-bargain. 615 S.W.2d at 548. Counsel for defendant objected to the questions asked, but only as to the form and not the substance, with his objection being sustained.

  2. State v. McIlvoy

    629 S.W.2d 333 (Mo. 1982)   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding death sentence disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases after considering both death and life sentence cases

    Nothing is preserved for review. State v. Jackson, 511 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Mo. 1974); State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 548 (Mo.App. 1981); State v. Sanders, 577 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Mo.App. 1979). Appellant would still ask this Court to find plain error because the trial court did not of its own motion declare a mistrial.

  3. State v. Jackson

    625 S.W.2d 627 (Mo. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    State v. McGee, 592 S.W.2d 886, 887 (Mo.App. 1980). See also State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.App. 1981). Although there was no eyewitness to the actual breaking, the circumstantial evidence amply supports the conclusion that someone burglarized the laundry building, and that the burglar was appellant.

  4. State v. Boyd

    91 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 20 times
    Entering conviction of lesser-included offense of misdemeanor receiving stolen property where there was insufficient evidence to support conviction of felony receiving stolen property

    ]" Not only did these comments constitute a general restatement of the law as it is routinely given to juries via court-read instructions, the prosecutor also characterized the statements as predictive of what the panel would hear from the trial court and not the prosecutor. The statements at issue here are not sufficiently dissimilar to those considered in Barnum to justify our deviating from its holding, which we are bound to follow as the latest controlling decision of our supreme court. Mo. Const. art. V section 2; Graham at 838; State v. Phinney, 885 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Mo.App.W.D. 1994); State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550 (Mo.App.E.D. 1981). Accordingly, Appellant's first point is denied.

  5. State v. Graham

    964 S.W.2d 836 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial when the prosecutor made reference during voir dire to the fact that the defendant did not have to testify at trial

    Under Article V, § 2 of the Missouri Constitution, we are bound to follow the last controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. State v. Phinney, 885 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994); State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981). Accordingly, we are compelled to follow Lindsey with the result that the judgment in Case No. 20538 must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

  6. Rios v. State

    848 S.W.2d 638 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 8 times
    In Rios v. State, 848 S.W.2d 638, 640 (Mo.App. S.D. 1993), we also denied relief where the charges of possession and transportation of marihuana were read to the defendant at the time of the plea and he assured the trial court that his guilty plea was being made because he was guilty.

    By that section, we are bound by the last controlling opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri. State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550 (Mo.App. 1981); Babcock v. State, 609 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Mo.App. 1980). Based on Villa-Perez, Movant's first point lacks merit.

  7. State v. Wade

    826 S.W.2d 843 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    We are bound to follow the last controlling opinion of our Supreme Court. Art. V, § 2, Mo. Const.; State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550 (Mo.App. 1981). Point III is without merit.

  8. Kunkel v. State

    775 S.W.2d 579 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 10 times
    Noting that this court is constitutionally bound to follow Day

    We are constitutionally bound to follow the last controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Mo. Const. art. V, § 2 (1945); Gunter v. State, 754 S.W.2d 594, 596[3] (Mo.App. 1988); State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550[15] (Mo.App. 1981). Consequently, had appellant's challenges to the constitutionality of the time limitations in Rule 24.035( l) been preserved for our review, we would be constrained by Day to reject them.

  9. State v. Luster

    750 S.W.2d 474 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 12 times

    State v. Guinan, 732 S.W.2d 174, 178[6] (Mo. banc 1987). Since this Court is bound by the last controlling opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri, State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 550[15] (Mo.App. 1981); State v. Jones, 703 S.W.2d 41, 42[1] (Mo.App. 1985), the defendant's argument on this point must fail. In Point V, the defendant challenges the trial court's decision to overrule his objection to the following question asked by the prosecuting attorney:

  10. State v. Burton

    721 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 18 times
    In Burton, 721 S.W.2d 58, a prosecutor did not mention punishment in the first part of his closing argument other than to say he would "return" after defense counsel's argument and "discuss punishment."

    The trial court is vested with discretion to rule on the admission or exclusion of evidence where the issue is materiality and relevancy, State v. Harlston, 565 S.W.2d 773, 782 (Mo.App. 1978), and in the absence of clear abuse of that discretion, a trial court's ruling to admit or exclude evidence will not be disturbed. State v. Dunn, 615 S.W.2d 543, 549 (Mo.App. 1981). Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to support or establish a fact in issue.