State v. Crawford

16 Citing cases

  1. State v. Hayes

    442 S.W.2d 14 (Mo. 1969)   Cited 3 times

    The trial court is vested with a broad discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared because of testimony alleged to be prejudicial, and the supreme court reverses for error in such instances only where it finds there is an abuse of discretion. State v. Crawford, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 178, 187[8]. The transcript discloses that the subject was not mentioned again after the answer was stricken and the jury instructed to disregard it. The state did not undertake to exploit the remark in any manner and there is no charge that they induced it. Furthermore, we are not convinced that the witness's response was prejudicial.

  2. State v. Jennings

    448 P.2d 62 (Ariz. 1969)   Cited 6 times

    Although we have found no cases construing Miranda, supra, on the issue raised by defendant, a recent Missouri case admitted a defendant's statements when, in the course of questioning concerning a car theft, he admitted committing murder. In State v. Crawford, 416 S.W.2d 178 (Mo. 1967), an F.B.I. agent preceded his interrogation with a warning of defendant's constitutional rights. (For several years prior to the 1966 Miranda decision the F.B.I. gave defendants under interrogation the exact warnings that the Supreme Court made mandatory for all police officers in Miranda, supra.

  3. State v. Bruce

    655 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    An exception is made "where it is shown that matters which might establish prejudice or work a disqualification were actually gone into on the voir dire, and false answers were given, or deception otherwise practiced. . . ." State v. Crawford, 416 S.W.2d 178, 191 (Mo. 1967). The trial court may consider this question in a motion for a new trial, either upon oral testimony taken at a hearing on the motion, or by affidavit, because the defendant is not to be left without a remedy when the disqualification of the juror was one which he could not have discovered earlier by due diligence.

  4. State v. Powers

    613 S.W.2d 955 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 18 times

    Jurors shall be residents of the county where the jury is impaneled. § 494.010, RSMo 1978. The juror was never asked during voir dire in what county he resided. His statement about living south of Boss apparently was true. He testified at the hearing on the motion for new trial that he lived approximately 5 miles south of Boss in Reynolds County. Qualifications of a juror must be determined and objections made to the juror before the jury is sworn except where matters which might establish disqualification were covered and false answers given. State v. Crawford, 416 S.W.2d 178, 191 (Mo. 1967). Where a party fails to inquire on voir dire about a juror's lack of qualification, he cannot thereafter complain.

  5. Crawford v. State

    669 N.E.2d 141 (Ind. 1996)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the fact that a sheriff intended a warrant to serve as a detainer under the IAD is immaterial if it does not satisfy the requirements of the IAD

    Under these circumstances the police officers had reasonable cause to believe that the Pontiac was a stolen automobile, and that defendant had stolen and had driven it across state lines; therefore, his arrest without a warrant was lawful, and the subsequent search and seizure incident to the arrest did not violate constitutional guaranties against unreasonable search and seizure. State v. Crawford, 416 S.W.2d 178, 185-86 (Mo. 1967). We agree with the analysis of the Supreme Court of Missouri on this issue.

  6. State v. Hemphill

    460 S.W.2d 648 (Mo. 1970)   Cited 9 times

    Section 494.020(4) applies to both grand or petit jurors. In State v. Crawford, Mo.Sup., 416 S.W.2d 178, 191, the ineligibility of a petit juror, likewise the jury foreman, was first raised in the motion for new trial. This juror was a licensed attorney while residing in Kansas City but had lived in Laclede County, where the trial was held, for 20 years and had not engaged in the practice of law there. Neither counsel for the state nor for defendant or the trial judge knew this juror was a licensed attorney.

  7. State v. Gaitan

    442 S.W.2d 530 (Mo. 1969)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that a question about present employment in field of law enforcement did not trigger disclosure of past employment in field of law enforcement

    " It may be argued that the italicized language relates to the past tense. It is not, however, a plain, direct interrogation as to past police service or experience and, obviously, there was no deception by Juror Shannon and no directly false answers by him. State v. Crawford, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 178, 191-192. Upon this record it may only be said that there was a failure to directly and plainly examine the jurors, individually or collectively, as to their past experience as law officers and thus there is no demonstration of error. 50 C.J.S. Juries § 252, p. 1014.

  8. State v. Mistakis

    443 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    State v. Camper, supra; State v. Smith, Mo., 431 S.W.2d 74, 83. Necessarily, the trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared, and we reverse for error in such instances only where we can find that the court has abused its discretion. State v. Crawford, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 178, 187. In this case the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the answer.

  9. Helming v. Dulle

    441 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. 1969)   Cited 18 times
    In Helming, an injured husband's wife sued for loss of consortium after her husband was hospitalized because he “severely injured” his hands on the defendant's machinery.

    Upon denial, it developed upon defendant to determine at once the effect, if any, thereof and then to accept or reject by challenge or other court action. State v. Crawford, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 178; State v. Hermann, Mo., 283 S.W.2d 617. Defendant's complaint not only came later, and after the trial jury was sworn, but following his active participation in the selection of the trial jury. Defendant's contention cannot prevail.

  10. Crawford v. State

    436 S.W.2d 632 (Mo. 1969)   Cited 13 times

    On appeal to this court, the conviction was affirmed. State v. Crawford, Mo.Sup., 416 S.W.2d 178. Crawford filed a motion under Supreme Court Rule 27.26, in the Laclede County Circuit Court. The court appointed counsel who had represented Crawford at the trial and on the prior appeal to represent him in the collateral proceeding.