Free Newsletter
Criminal Law: Character Evidence-Propensity Evidence-Uninvited Reference
Staff Report//June 4, 2019//
Where a defendant in a domestic-assault case argued that the trial court erred in failing to intervene when a witness offered allegedly improper character and propensity testimony when the witness said he assumed the defendant “had a court date somewhere,” the statement was volunteered and not invited, and it was also vague, isolated and not repeated by the state, so the defendant did not show prejudice, and the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Kidd (MLW No. 73289/Case No. WD81348 – 6 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Hardwick, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Cass County, Collins, J. (Christian Lehmberg, Columbia, for appellant) (Mary H. Moore, Jefferson City, for respondent).
Legal Tech
- How ransomware tactics against law firms are changing
- How large language models are leveling the personal injury playing field
- Attorney Share, Lawmatics integrate to automate law firm referrals
Latest Opinion Digests
- Criminal Law-Second-Degree Rape-Sufficiency of Evidence
- Criminal Law-Witness Tampering-Sufficiency of Evidence
- Criminal Law-Post-Conviction Relief-Abandonment by Counsel
- Criminal Law-Filing Criminal Charges-Attorney General Aid
- Criminal Law-Civil Commitment-Sexually Violent Predator
- Criminal Law-Assault-Prosecutorial Misconduct
- Real Property-Prescriptive Easement-Public Right of Way
Top stories
- Missouri Bar committee seeks input on rural legal service gaps
- Appeals court orders new look at conversion therapy case following Supreme Court ruling
- Jury finds seat belt maker liable in $40.5M child injury case
- Injured motorist recovers policy limits, plus medical damages in under a year
- Mother obtains six-figure settlement after rear-end crash leads to lifelong pain
- 8th Circuit affirms denial of preliminary injunction against SB 751
- New dedicated coverage of tech challenges facing law firms and legal departments
- Parity Act claim against insurer for child’s treatment survives motion to dismiss
