Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pollard v. Whitener

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 10, 1998No. WD 52644Published

1DissentLaura Denvir Stith, Judge

We concur in the basic principle invoked by the majority that, in order to preserve a claim that the trial judge improperly limited voir dire, counsel usually must inform the trial judge of the areas of necessary questioning which have not been covered, and request permission to ask necessary questions in those areas. We disagree with the majority’s application of this principle to the facts of this case, however, and with its determination that this principle requires us to affirm the judgment below.

As discussed infra, the record below demonstrates that the trial judge did not limit voir…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1994
  2. State v. GraySupreme Court of Missouri · 1994
  3. Douglass v. SafireSupreme Court of Missouri · 1986
  4. State v. CrockettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1967
  5. Thacker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1994

11 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