State v. Moore

4 Citing cases

  1. Moore v. State

    796 S.W.2d 114 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)

    His conviction was affirmed. State v. Moore, 581 S.W.2d 873 (Mo.App.E.D. 1979). In his motion, movant alleged five instances of ineffective assistance of counsel.

  2. Camillo v. State

    757 S.W.2d 234 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 15 times

    As a result, a factual issue existed which created a legitimate basis for this reputation evidence. State v. Moore, 581 S.W.2d 873, 874 (Mo.App. 1979). Consequently, trial counsel cannot be said to have been ineffective for failure to object.

  3. State v. Hemphill

    669 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 10 times

    Allowing such testimony was not an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. See State v. Moore, 581 S.W.2d 873, 874 (Mo.App. 1979). Third, the defense counsel did not properly object to statements made by the prosecution in closing arguments.

  4. State v. Cleveland

    583 S.W.2d 263 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 21 times

    In some cases, depending upon the posture of the trial and the issues, the cross-examination condemned in Dunn and in the present case might be permissible. See, for example, State v. Moore, 581 S.W.2d 873 (Mo.App. 1979). See Rule 608, Federal Rules of Evidence: "Specific instances of the conduct of a witness ... may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness.