State v. McMillan

29 Citing cases

  1. State v. Scrutchfield

    742 S.W.2d 192 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    The use of the term "mugshots" does not necessarily indicate the commission of prior criminal offenses. State v. Ross, 680 S.W.2d 213, 218 (Mo.App. 1984); State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629, 632 (Mo.App. 1980). A defendant has the burden of showing that the use of the term constituted evidence of prior criminal offenses.

  2. State v. Johnson

    160 S.W.3d 839 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    Noting "[a]ppellant has never asserted, and does not now assert, that she was not convicted of the prior felonies" and concluding when "an [a]ppellant offers no evidence to rebut the prima facie showing of a prior felony conviction, the trial court may act in reliance upon that evidence"

    In fact, in State v. McMillan, the reviewing court determined that "[t]he identity of first and last names alone authorized a finding by the trial court that defendant was the person previously convicted." State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Mo.App. 1980);State v. Michael, 361 S.W.2d 664, 666 (Mo. 1962). See State v. Cook, 463 S.W.2d 863, 868 (Mo. 1971) (held that the difference between a name with a middle initial and one without a middle initial "is not significant"); State v. McBurnett, 694 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Mo.App. 1985) (held that there was no difference where the Appellant used a middle initial and the conviction record contained the entire middle name).

  3. State v. Walker

    616 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that mugshots are considered neutral and do not indicate prior criminal activity

    Defendant asserts that the use of the "mug shots" implanted in the jury's mind that defendant had prior criminal involvement, even though the police lettering had been blocked out. This precise point was raised and rejected in State v. Lorenze, 592 S.W.2d 523 (Mo.App. 1979), and State v. Irvin, 590 S.W.2d 699 (Mo.App. 1979), holding that mug shots were neutral and without indication of prior criminal activity. See also: State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629, 632-33 (Mo.App. 1980). Next, defendant argues prejudicial error in the testimony of the arresting officer as being an extrajudicial identification.

  4. McMillan v. Chief Judge, Cir. Ct., Greene Cty

    711 F.2d 108 (8th Cir. 1983)   Cited 3 times
    Finding request for injunction against further delay in deciding motion was moot where motion had already been denied

    On January 22, 1980, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and sentence. State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629 (Mo.App. 1980). McMillan filed a 27.26 motion on January 25, 1980.

  5. State v. Crawford

    619 S.W.2d 735 (Mo. 1981)   Cited 31 times

    Furthermore, if the trial court's ruling was indiscreet appellant himself "`reached back and wiped the purported basis for his motion for a mistrial clean of any prejudice'" by taking the stand and testifying that he had twice been convicted of burglary in Illinois. State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Mo.App. 1980). Appellant's last point is that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial during the State's opening statement, in which the prosecutor four times referred to appellant as "Jesse James Crawford", thereby planting in the minds of the jury the idea that appellant was to be equated with the notorious outlaw, to his prejudice, thus depriving him of a fair trial.

  6. State v. Bohlen

    284 S.W.3d 714 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 6 times

    At the time of Defendant's appeal, Missouri courts uniformly defined robbery as an offense against possession and regarded ownership of the property as immaterial to proof of the offense. Wright, 476 S.W.2d at 584; State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629, 634 (Mo.App. S.D. 1980) ("[O]wnership by a specific person of the property taken is not material to and does not affect the offense of robbery, as long as it is shown that it was not the property of the accused."); State v. Manns, 533 S.W.2d 645, 648 (Mo.App. 1976).

  7. State v. Bohlen

    No. ED46436-01 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2009)

    At the time of Defendant's appeal, Missouri courts uniformly defined robbery as an offense against possession and regarded ownership of the property as immaterial to proof of the offense. Wright, 476 S.W.2d at 584;State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629, 634 (Mo.App.S.D. 1980) ("[O]wnership by a specific person of the property taken is not material to and does not affect the offense of robbery, as long as it is shown that it was not the property of the accused."); State v. Manns, 537 S.W.3d 645, 648 (Mo.App. 1976).

  8. State v. Hamilton

    8 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. Hamilton, 8 S.W.3d 132, 134 (Mo.App.S.D. 1999), we reversed the judgment of conviction and ordered a new trial, where "[t]he record on appeal [did] not reveal defendant's waiver of a jury trial in open court or any entry of record disclosing his waiver of a jury trial."

    He thereby failed to preserve the claim that the trial court erred by denying him a jury trial.State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629, 632 (Mo.App. 1980). Defendant obviously recognizes this failing in that Point II contends the trial court "plainly erred.

  9. State v. Walls

    911 S.W.2d 645 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    Even if the trial court's ruling was improper, Defendant himself "`reached back and wiped the purported basis for his motion for a mistrial clean of any prejudice' by taking the stand and testifying" that he had prior convictions. State v. Crawford, 619 S.W.2d at 740 (quoting State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Mo.App.S.D. 1980). It is the duty of the trial court, who has observed the testimony and is in a better position than an appellate court, to evaluate the prejudicial effect, if any.

  10. State v. Simms

    859 S.W.2d 943 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 11 times
    In Simms, the State informed the venire panel that the trial court would determine the defendant’s sentence if he was found guilty.

    Defendant bears the burden of showing that a statement constituted evidence of other crimes. State v. McMillan, 593 S.W.2d 629, 632 (Mo.App.S.D. 1980); State v. Leady, 543 S.W.2d 788, 790 (Mo.App. E.D. 1976). Evidence of other crimes is generally inadmissible unless the evidence has a legitimate tendency to establish defendant's guilt of the immediate crime charged.