State v. Cooksey

11 Citing cases

  1. State v. Hawkins

    58 S.W.3d 12 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 21 times
    Stating that photographs are not inadmissible merely because the defendant stipulates to some of the issues involved

    State v. Foster, 631 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Mo.App. 1982) (reversing for failure to cross-reference a mistake of fact defense instruction in a verdict director for rape). The absence from a verdict director of an explicit cross-reference to a separate defense instruction, however, has not been viewed as plain error. State v. Dunlap, 706 S.W.2d 272, 277 (Mo.App. 1986); State v. Cooksey, 805 S.W.2d 709, 710-11 (Mo.App. 1991). In Dunlap the defendant was found guilty, as charged, of each of two counts of assault.

  2. Patterson v. State

    576 S.W.3d 240 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    In our unpublished memorandum, we explained that, in cases such as State v. McClure , 632 S.W.2d 314, 317 (Mo. App. 1982), when the failure to cross-reference a special negative defense like the one set forth in Instruction No. 6 was preserved, appellate courts have found the failure to cross-reference prejudicial, even in the presence of evidence that the jury was not likely misdirected, and have reversed and remanded for a new trial. When the error was not preserved, however, cases like State v. Burns , 292 S.W.3d 501, 508 (Mo. App. 2009) and State v. Cooksey , 805 S.W.2d 709, 710-11 (Mo. App. 1991), have required the appellant to establish that "the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the alleged error" in order to be entitled to reversal under plain error review. To meet this standard of prejudice, the appellant must show that the jury either was unaware of the defense instruction or failed to use the instruction in its deliberations.

  3. State v. McKeown

    S.D. 37712 (Mo. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2024)

    State v. Hawkins, 58 S.W.3d 12, 18 (Mo.App. 2001); State v. Cooksey, 805 S.W.2d 709, 710-11 (Mo.App. 1991); State v. Dunlap, 706 S.W.2d 272, 277 (Mo.App. 1986).

  4. State v. Burns

    292 S.W.3d 501 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 7 times
    Finding evidence that the defendant uttered a threat to kill the victim supported the inclusion of the initial-aggressor language in a jury instruction

    "The absence from a verdict director of an explicit cross-reference to a separate defense instruction . . . has not been viewed as plain error." Id., citing State v. Cooksey, 805 S.W.2d 709, 710-11 (Mo.App. 1991), and State v. Dunlap, 706 S.W.2d 272, 277 (Mo.App. 1986). Under the facts in this case, this court finds no plain error as a result of Instruction No. 5 having not cross-referenced the self-defense instruction.

  5. State v. Mitchell

    145 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 16 times
    In State v. Mitchell, 145 S.W.3d 21 (Mo.App. 2004), the waiver was not made in open court, but rather was stated in a letter from defense counsel to the trial judge.

    Rather, prejudice exists, under the "plain error" rule, only where the error complained of impacts so substantially upon the rights of a defendant that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if left uncorrected. State v. Cooksey, 805 S.W.2d 709, 711 (Mo.App.W.D. 1991). The burden of proving manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice is on the Appellant.

  6. State v. Seibert

    103 S.W.3d 295 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 16 times
    Holding the circuit court did not plainly err because the defendant admitted to committing the underlying criminal acts and "the announcement of the waiver, and the trial court's acceptance of it, were in the record of the proceedings, as was the fact that Defendant was present and voiced no objection"

    Rather, prejudice exists, under the "plain error" rule, only where the error complained of impacts so substantially upon the rights of a defendant that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result if left uncorrected. State v. Cooksey, 805 S.W.2d 709, 711 (Mo.App.W.D. 1991). The burden of proving manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice is on the defendant.

  7. State v. Francis

    997 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that defendants who chose to testify on their own behalf are subject to "contradiction and impeachment" as would be any other witness

    For instructional error to rise to the level of plain error, the trial court must have so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury as to cause manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. Id. See also State v. Cooksey, 805 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Mo. App. 1991). The defendant bears the burden of establishing manifest injustice.

  8. State v. Berry

    916 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 13 times

    Id. See also State v. Cooksey, 805 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Mo.App.W.D. 1991). The defendant bears the burden of establishing manifest injustice.

  9. State v. West

    866 S.W.2d 150 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 5 times

    (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a `distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.State v. Cooksey, 805 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Mo.App. 1991). Not only did defendant fail to establish a prima facie violation, but he did not even allege underrepresentation of blacks on the venire panel.

  10. State v. Farley

    863 S.W.2d 669 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    Furthermore, this court has noted "Systematic exclusion of a distinctive group is not established by the nonrepresentation or underrepresentation of a group on a particular jury panel." State v. Cooksey, 805 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Mo.App. 1991). Appellant has not shown prejudice resulting from the all white jury, or prejudice resulting from counsel's decision not to object to either the venire or the jury selected due to racial composition; therefore, the second point on appeal is denied.