State v. Feeler
Missouri Court of Appeals
1DissentTitus, Judge
I respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority opinion which holds the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of stealing.
A person should not be convicted upon an inference of an essential fact. State v. James, 133 Mo.App. 300, 305, 113 S.W. 232, 233[5] (1908). Likewise, no defendant in a criminal case should be compelled to testify against himself (U.S.Const, amend. V; Mo. Const, art. I, § 19) and it violates defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination to place him in a position where he must testify to avoid any adverse inferences that may arise from his failure to…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. ChaseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
- State v. SwarensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- State v. WebbSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
- State v. JamesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- State v. MyersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.