Missouri Court of Appeals· 12/26/2007

State v. Walters

Citations

241 S.W.3d 435
2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1751
2007 WL 4481055

How courts have described this case

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

noting a lack of prejudice is shown where the defendant avoids answering the problematic question directly
finding no prejudice from State asking defendant whether police witness was lying, in part because defendant “avoided answering the specific question seeking comment on [witness’s] veracity, responding only that [witness] said ‘some things’ that ‘were not true’”
finding no prejudice when the State asked whether a police officer was lying in his testimony partially because the defendant did not comment on the officer’s truthfulness and instead responded that the officer said “‘some things’ that ‘were not true’”
“From the record, we see no indication that [the defendant’s former attorney] used anything gathered from his previous representation of [the defendant] to [the defendant’s] disadvantage.”
when considering the issue of whether a conflict existed under Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.9, the Court found that there was no evidence that the attorney used any knowledge gained by a conflict of interest to the adverse party’s disadvantage.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Holliger, Lowenstein, Smart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 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.