Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Shaw

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 28, 1999No. 73907Published

1DissentRichard B. Teitelman, Presiding Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority decision regarding Defendant’s second point on appeal, specifically, his gender Batson challenge for venireperson D.M. In the interest of justice and consistency, I would reverse and remand.

*87I

As the majority states, to preserve a Batson challenge, a defendant must make a timely objection at trial, must assert the alleged error in his motion for new trial and must adequately raise the matter in his brief on appeal. State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930, 935 (Mo. banc 1992) cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1014, 113 S.Ct. 636, 121 L.Ed.2d 566 (1992). Defendant preserved…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Purkett v. ElemSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TBSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API