Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Kenley

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided August 20, 1997No. 77093Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LAURA DENVIR STITH, Special Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion in Part II of its opinion that the motion court’s verbatim adoption of the prosecutor’s proposed findings of fact does not require reversal and remand for a new hearing. While Missouri courts have repeatedly held that such adoption of a party’s findings does not automatically mandate reversal, they have also cautioned that they will reverse where evidence is presented that the findings so adopted do not reflect the independent judgment of the court. That is what I…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Woodson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Zant v. StephensSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Gardner v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Proffitt v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

16 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