State v. Jimmerson

4 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Armontrout

    912 F.2d 924 (8th Cir. 1990)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that a court's failure to give a limiting instruction regarding a previous murder conviction when defense counsel failed to move for one did not constitute a violation of petitioner's due process rights

    Id. at 541. Further, in State v. Jimmerson, 660 S.W.2d 475, 476-79 (Mo.Ct.App. 1983), the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's conviction for capital murder where, following the robbery of a store, the defendant and an accomplice took the clerk to a country road and shot him. In reaching this result, the court acknowledged that the defendant's accomplice was permitted to plead guilty to first-degree murder for the same offense and appeared to concede that the evidence could have supported such a charge.

  2. Jimmerson v. State

    752 S.W.2d 506 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)

    § 565.001, RSMo 1978 (repealed). He was sentenced to life imprisonment as provided in § 565.008.1, RSMo 1978 (repealed). His conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Jimmerson, 660 S.W.2d 475 (Mo.App. 1983). In this proceeding he attacks that conviction by motion under Rule 27.26 filed on November 3, 1986.

  3. State v. O'Dell

    684 S.W.2d 453 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)

    To the extent the instruction submitted the defendant's active participation in the attempted assault, it placed a greater burden than required upon the state. State v. Jimmerson, 660 S.W.2d 475 (Mo.App. 1983). The instruction awkwardly, but adequately, submitted the defendant's responsibility.

  4. State v. Bullington

    684 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 17 times
    Stating that when determining sufficiency of corpus delicti proof, reviewing court views evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding contrary evidence and inferences

    Furthermore, individual questioning of potential jurors is not required even in capital murder cases. State v. Jimmerson, 660 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Mo.App. 1983). The facts here do not warrant an exception to this rule absent an indication that prejudice likely occurred, the trial court cannot be said to have abused its discretion in this denial.