State v. Neely

15 Citing cases

  1. State v. Irby

    254 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that a general objection to foundation preserves nothing for appellate review

    Under Section 491.074, prior inconsistent statements are admissible as substantive evidence and the party offering the inconsistent statement may offer the truth thereof. See State v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552, 559-60 (Mo.App.S.D. 1998). Defendant argues that the videotaped statement was not relevant to the issue of Mr. Hoover's credibility.

  2. Neely v. State

    117 S.W.3d 731 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 5 times

    RELEVANT FACTS The underlying facts of this case can be found in Movant's direct appeal to this court in State v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.App. 1998). We need not repeat all of those facts here; suffice it to say, the evidence was sufficient to convict Movant of first-degree murder for the shooting death of Terri Bell ("Victim") on January 14, 1995.

  3. State v. Pacheco

    101 S.W.3d 913 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 9 times

    In such instances, witness testimony given at the preliminary examination is competent at trial and satisfies the requirements of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. State v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552, 556 (Mo.App. 1998). The record reveals that Mr. Cook participated in a preliminary hearing and provided testimony which placed Defendant, his "next-door neighbor," as the driver of the van that pulled into his driveway the night Ms. Cory was killed.

  4. Roberts v. State

    356 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Finding no prejudice from failure to call character witnesses at sentencing where sentence was based primarily on the "senseless" nature of the crime

    Missouri courts have held that mere noncompliance with the requirements of Rule 9.03 does not by itself constitute constitutional error. State v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552, 558 (Mo.App. S.D.1998). As the court observed in Stott v. State, such a per se rule would be inappropriate, since attorneys licensed in other States are presumably qualified to practice law. 771 S.W.2d 841, 843 (Mo.App. E.D.1989).

  5. State v. Hayes

    15 S.W.3d 779 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 16 times

    " Id. The "jury resolves questions of credibility and inconsistencies in the evidence." State v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552, 561 (Mo.App. 1998). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the adduced evidence shows that Stacy graduated from Central High School in 1989.

  6. State v. Evans

    992 S.W.2d 275 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 27 times
    Finding questionable hearsay testimony did not prejudice defendant where similar evidence was properly admitted into evidence

    Id. The jury resolves questions of credibility and inconsistencies in the evidence. State v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552, 561 (Mo.App. 1998). A jury may accept part of a witness's testimony while disbelieving other portions.

  7. State v. Wright

    551 S.W.3d 608 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 16 times

    Accordingly, the videotaped interview was not cumulative to Wright’s testimony on cross-examination, nor required any additional foundation. See State v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552, 560 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (finding that, even though the witness admitted that he made prior inconsistent statements, the trial court did not err in playing his prior recorded statements because "the jury should have [the evidence] in the best form for judging its credibility."); State v. Dale, 874 S.W.2d 446, 452 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (explaining that additional foundation is not necessary for the State to offer rebuttal evidence contradictory of statements made by the defendant in his or her testimony).

  8. State v. Placke

    290 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 18 times
    In State v. Placke, 290 S.W.3d 145, 150, 156 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009), the Southern District of this Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction of first-degree statutory sodomy, without considering the ten-year minimum sentence for victims under twelve, when the evidence at trial was that the victim was only eleven years of age.

    By viewing the videotape, the jury was better able to resolve T.D.'s contention that the accusations in the interview had been prompted by threats from B.K. See State v. Irby, 254 S.W.3d 181, 190 (Mo.App. 2008); State v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552, 560 (Mo.App. 1998). Defendant's third argument has no merit, and Point I is denied.

  9. State v. Adams

    229 S.W.3d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 6 times

    '"There must be a clear showing of an abuse of discretion for an appellate court to interfere with a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence.'" Bowens, 964 S.W.2d at 237 (quoting State v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552, 561 (Mo.App. 1998)). Here, Appellant sought to introduce evidence relating to his previous interactions with other judges.

  10. State v. Blocker

    No. 25003 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2003)

    Likewise, in Appellant's third point relied on he assigns trial court error for its denial of Appellant's offered instructions "A" and "B" wherein he postulates his "affirmative defense" relating to the "ultimate user" or "household prescription" defense. As we have previously established, the "ultimate user" or "household prescription" defense is not a viable defense given the circumstances of this case, and Appellant is not entitled to a jury instruction that fails to properly state the law.SeeState v. Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Mo.App. 1998) ("In the absence of a pattern instruction, the trial court must instruct the jury consistent with the substantive law.") Point denied. Appellant's proposed Instruction No. A provides, in pertinent part, that: "One of the issues is whether the controlled substance found on [Appellant] was a prescribed medication for a member of his household.