Missouri Court of Appeals· 7/26/2016

State v. Ragland

Citations

494 S.W.3d 613
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 735
2016 WL 4004608

How courts have described this case

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

holding that circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting statements during a forensic interview, even though the interviewer “prompted [the victim] with questions and rephrased certain questions to combat [the victim’s] confusion”
holding that CAC interviews of persons who testify at trial are “not testimonial in nature” and, as a result, “the trial court committed no error, plain or otherwise, in allowing the jury access to the videos during deliberations.”
interpreting § 556.061(31), RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013, which defined a “sexual performance as “any performance, or part thereof, which includes sexual conduct by a child who is less than seventeen years of age,” but without further defining a “performance”
interpreting § 556.061(31), RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013, which defined a sexual performance as “any performance, or part thereof, which includes sexual conduct by a child who is less than seventeen years of age,” but without further defining a “performance”
no evidence that the defendant was present when directions were performed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lisa, Qdenwald, Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.