State v. Hodge

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Robinson

    484 S.W.3d 862 (E.D. Mo. 2016)

    The State initially counters that cases like State v. Boyd and State v. Hodge, in which this court declined to exercise plain error review over failures to give a mandatory instruction, preclude any plain error review here. SeeBoyd, 600 S.W.2d 97, 100 (Mo.App.E.D.1980); Hodge, 660 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Mo.App.S.D.1983). Insofar as those cases stood for the proposition that failing to object to instructional error at trial precludes any appellate review, they have clearly been supplanted by State v. Wurtzberger.

  2. State v. Robinson

    484 S.W.3d 862 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times
    Holding Rule 30.20 allows for plain error review of unpreserved claims of instructional error notwithstanding Rule 28.03

    The State initially counters that cases like State v. Boyd and State v. Hodge, in which this court declined to exercise plain error review over failures to give a mandatory instruction, preclude any plain error review here. SeeBoyd, 600 S.W.2d 97, 100 (Mo.App.E.D.1980); Hodge, 660 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Mo.App.S.D.1983). Insofar as those cases stood for the proposition that failing to object to instructional error at trial precludes any appellate review, they have clearly been supplanted by State v. Wurtzberger.

  3. State v. Dunagan

    772 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 17 times
    Holding no abuse of discretion occurred when the trial court denied the defendant's motion for mistrial after the trial court read various incorrect versions of the verdict-directing instruction to the jury, then conferred with counsel outside the hearing of the jury before instructing the jury that the read incorrect instruction was prepared by the State and made painstakingly clear to the jury that the defendant and her lawyer were not at fault

    While the jury heard the first third of the verdict-directing instruction four times, the first two-thirds three times, and the entire instruction twice, we find no harm to appellant, as the trial court made it painstakingly clear to the jury that he was attempting to give a correct instruction, that changes had to be made to accomplish that goal, and that appellant and her lawyer were not at fault. In State v. Hodge, 660 S.W.2d 400 (Mo.App. 1983), the trial court discovered during closing arguments of counsel that it had omitted a paragraph in a required instruction. The trial court called the omission to the lawyers' attention, read the omitted paragraph to the jury, and corrected the written instruction which went to the jury.

  4. State v. Hannett

    713 S.W.2d 267 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 10 times
    In Hannett, the accused was charged with forcible rape, forcible sodomy and kidnapping. He admitted the sex acts, but avowed the victim (his ex-wife) consented.

    In the case at bar, the instruction given to the jury was also a definition that favored neither appellant nor the state. In State v. Hodge, 660 S.W.2d 400 (Mo. App. 1983), the initial omission of a paragraph from the instructions was corrected by the court's reading of the omitted paragraph before any possible harm was done. This correction was made during closing argument.