State v. Christian

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Christian

328 S.W.3d 816, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1800, 2010 WL 5393514

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Christian. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 555 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 30, 2010·No. WD 70718·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

This is a self-incrimination case. The issue is whether, despite an otherwise valid waiver of his rights after having received the Miranda warnings, the defendant was compelled to be a witness against himself by virtue of the police informing him that (1) it would be better for him to tell his side of the story and (2) telling the truth would not hurt him. We hold that the subject statements were not coercive and that therefore the defendant was not compelled to incriminate himself. Accordingly, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order

PER CURIAM:

This is a self-incrimination case. The issue is whether, despite an otherwise valid waiver of his rights after having received the Miranda warnings, the defendant was compelled to be a witness against himself by virtue of the police informing him that (1) it would be better for him to tell his side of the story and (2) telling the truth would not hurt him. We hold that the subject statements were not coercive and that therefore the defendant was not compelled to incriminate himself. Accordingly, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Christian, 328 S.W.3d 816, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1800, 2010 WL 5393514 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

328 S.W.3d 816 (State v. Christian) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.