Legal Opinion

State v. Feeler

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 6, 1982No. 11707Published

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

  1. State v. ChaseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
  2. State v. SwarensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
  3. State v. WebbSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
  4. State v. JamesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  5. State v. MyersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977

2 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