Supreme Court of Missouri· 1/11/2011

State v. Schroeder

Citations

330 S.W.3d 468
2011 Mo. LEXIS 3
2011 WL 101699

How courts have described this case

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

holding that attempts to define what is meant by an \'intoxicated condition'\ would \'tend to confuse rather than clarify the issues'\
holding that “ordinary persons understand what is meant by the term[] ‘intoxicated condition,’ ” negating any need for a definition in MAI-CR 3d 331.02
holding that attempts to define what is meant by an \'intoxicated condition'\ would \'tend to confuse rather than clarify the issues'\
“Miranda warnings are not required before administering field dexterity tests. The results of the tests are not testimonial or communicative; rather, they exhibit the degree of a person’s physical coordination.”
“Missouri courts have also recognized that a driver is in an ‘intoxicated condition’ for purposes of a DWI prosecution if his use of alcohol impairs his ability to operate an automobile.”
“Missouri courts have also recognized that a driver is in an ‘intoxicated condition’ for purposes of a DWI prosecution if his use of alcohol impairs his ability to operate an automobile.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Price

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

22 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.