State v. Mahurin

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’s child endangerment statute provided notice of the prohibited act, and reasoning that “[t]he words ‘substantial risk’ have a plain and ordinary meaning cognizable by a person of ordinary - 16 - intelligence.”
• holding the “words ‘substantial risk’ have a plain and ordinary meaning cognizable by a person of ordinary intelligence”
• finding that where a venireperson stated she wanted the defendant to “prove her innocence,” but “ultimately adhered to the presumption of innocence,” the trial judge was not required to strike her for cause
• “Because a defendant’s knowledge ... must be proven, the possibility of arbitrary convictions is negated.”
• “substantial risk” is not vague term under child endangerment statute since statute required defendant to act knowingly
• “To withhold food and medical care is to act in a manner that puts a child at risk. Failure to provide medical treatment for a child violates [the child endangerment statute].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).