State v. Strughold

37 Citing cases

  1. State v. Tolen

    295 S.W.3d 883 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. Tolen, 295 S.W.3d 883 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009), the defendant wished to admit a phone call in which the victim told the defendant that her aunt lied.

    "Anus" is defined as "the posterior opening of the alimentary canal." State v. Hahn, 35 S.W.3d 393, 395 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) ( citing State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 883 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998)). "Butt" is defined as "buttocks."

  2. State v. Crow

    63 S.W.3d 270 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 9 times

    To be logically relevant evidence must tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue. State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 887 (Mo.App. 1998). Legally relevant evidence is evidence whose probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

  3. State v. Hawkins

    58 S.W.3d 12 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 21 times
    Stating that photographs are not inadmissible merely because the defendant stipulates to some of the issues involved

    An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court ruling "clearly offends the logic of the circumstance or appears arbitrary and unreasonable." State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 887 (Mo.App. 1998). "Photographs are relevant if they show the scene of the crime, . . . the nature and extent of the wounds, the cause of death, [and] the condition and location of the body."

  4. State v. Hahn

    35 S.W.3d 393 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 14 times

    Section 566.010.1(3) RSMo (1986). "Anus" is defined as "the posterior opening of the alimentary canal." State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 883 (Mo.App. 1998) "Butt" is defined as "buttocks." Id. A "buttock" is defined as "either of the rounded parts at the back of the hips; either half of the rump.

  5. State v. Harrison

    996 S.W.2d 704 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)

    Harrison argues, and the state concedes, that he should be discharged from his conviction on this count, since "buttocks" does not equal "anus," and the state adduced no testimony that Harrison made her touch his anus. In State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998), addressing a similar contention, the court noted that "anus" is defined as "'the posterior opening of the alimentary canal.'" Id. at 883 (quotingWebster's Third New InternationalDictionary 97 (15th ed. 1996)).

  6. State v. Blue

    991 S.W.2d 716 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    State v. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d 149, 158 (Mo.banc 1998). However, we find this case is controlled by our recent decision in State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. App. 1998). If an instruction following MAI-Cr 3d conflicts with the substantive law, any court should decline to follow MAI-Cr 3d or its Notes on Use. Carson, 941 S.W.2d at 520.

  7. Haupt v. Moore

    Case No. 4:03CV1438MLM (E.D. Mo. Jun. 24, 2005)   Cited 3 times

    The trial court is vested with broad discretion in the admission of evidence. State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 887 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998). Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not interfere with the trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence.

  8. State v. Bowman

    337 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. 2011)   Cited 57 times
    Noting that the trial court has broad discretion in determining the sufficiency of the chain of custody

    To admit exhibits and testimony regarding tests performed on those exhibits, the trial court must be satisfied as to the identity of the exhibits and that the exhibits were in the same condition when tested as when the exhibits were originally obtained. State v. Mohan, 971 S.W.2d 307, 317 (Mo. banc 1998); State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 886 (Mo.App. 1998). This may be proven by evidence establishing a chain of custody, but proof of a chain of custody does not require proof of hand-to-hand custody of the evidence nor proof that eliminates all possibility that the evidence has been disturbed.

  9. State v. Link

    25 S.W.3d 136 (Mo. 2000)   Cited 71 times
    Finding that minor errors contained in motion court's findings and conclusions of law did not establish that the motion court failed to carefully consider the evidence before it

    In order to admit exhibits and testimony regarding tests performed on those exhibits, the trial court must be satisfied as to the identity of the exhibits and that the exhibits were in the same condition when tested as when the exhibits were originally obtained. State v. Mahan, 971 S.W.2d 307, 317 (Mo.banc 1998); State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 886 (Mo.App. 1998). This may be proven by evidence establishing a chain of custody, but proof of a chain of custody does not require proof of hand-to-hand custody of the evidence, nor proof that eliminates all possibility that the evidence has been disturbed.

  10. State v. Williams

    Case ID No.: 1204002559 (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 29, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Id. (citing Lovett v. State, 516 A.2d 455, 467 (Del. 1986)); United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173, 1178 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 106 (1978)). Id. (citing United States v. Hajecate, 683 F.2d 894, 897 (5th Cir. 1982); State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 890 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)). In his appeal, Defendant objects to the Commissioner's determination that Dobson v. State and Luttrell v. State could be distinguished from Defendant's case.