Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court of Missouri· 11/20/1990

State v. Mahurin

Citations

  • 799 S.W.2d 840
  • 1990 Mo. LEXIS 116
  • 1990 WL 179949

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).

Judges: Higgins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named State v. Mahurin

1 other CourtListener record shares this case 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.