Supreme Court of Missouri· 4/21/1992

State v. Blankenship

Citations

830 S.W.2d 1
1992 Mo. LEXIS 65
1992 WL 79033

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that Missouri does not recognize a statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule in criminal proceedings
noting that the venireperson’s “appearance” was one of the nonpretextual, race-neutral explanations supporting the peremptory challenge
holding the notice to which an accused is entitled when second-degree felony murder is an option as a lesser-degree offense to first-degree murder is such notice as will enable an accused to make his defense
no error in admitting a portion of a videotaped police interview of a witness that was inconsistent with the witness’s trial testimony
reason for rejecting extrajudicial statements is that the only evidence showing the statement was made is the written or oral recitation of the out-of-court statement by another person
out-of-court declarations against penal interest remain inadmissible “except to the extent required by Chambers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Holstein, Robertson, Covington, Benton, Thomas, Rendlen, Blackmar

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

195 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

44 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.