State v. Meyer

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Meyer

723 S.W.2d 391, 1987 Mo. LEXIS 255

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedJanuary 13, 1987

DocketNo. 68127

StatusPublished

This text of 723 S.W.2d 391 (State v. Meyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Meyer, 723 S.W.2d 391, 1987 Mo. LEXIS 255 (Mo. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

RENDLEN, Judge.

This is the companion case to State v. Pizzella, 723 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. banc 1987). William Meyer was charged with the class B felony of robbery in the second degree, under § 569.030, RSMo 1978 and convicted of the lesser offense of stealing without consent § 570.030, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984 (currently § 570.030 Noncum.Supp.1985).

Meyer appeals contending: (1) § 545.-880.1, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984 violates Mo. Const, art. V, § 5 (1945 amended 1976); (2) the prosecutor’s reference to a “conspiracy of silence” constituted improper comment on his decision not to testify at trial; and (3) the trial judge abused his discretion when he removed for cause venirewoman, Mrs. Santoyo, from the array. These points have received extensive treatment in the companion cause and on the authority of that decision, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

All concur.

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

RENDLEN, Judge.

This is the companion case to State v. Pizzella, 723 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. banc 1987). William Meyer was charged with the class B felony of robbery in the second degree, under § 569.030, RSMo 1978 and convicted of the lesser offense of stealing without consent § 570.030, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984 (currently § 570.030 Noncum.Supp.1985).

Meyer appeals contending: (1) § 545.-880.1, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984 violates Mo. Const, art. V, § 5 (1945 amended 1976); (2) the prosecutor’s reference to a “conspiracy of silence” constituted improper comment on his decision not to testify at trial; and (3) the trial judge abused his discretion when he removed for cause venirewoman, Mrs. Santoyo, from the array. These points have received extensive treatment in the companion cause and on the authority of that decision, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 S.W.2d 391, 1987 Mo. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-meyer-mo-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack