State of Missouri vs. Greg Hallgrimson

Rules

• Rule 2.02

  Rule 2.02

  cited
• Rule 30.20

  Rule 30.20

  cited

Cases

• definitions see state v boedecker 717 sw3d 225

  Definitions. See State v. Boedecker, 717 S.W.3d 225

  cited
• mlh v juvenile officer 634 sw3d 667

  M.L.H. v. Juvenile Officer, 634 S.W.3d 667

  cited
• petersen v state 658 sw3d 512

  Petersen v. State, 658 S.W.3d 512

  followed
• see state v livingston 665 sw3d 363

  See State v. Livingston, 665 S.W.3d 363

  cited
• state v banks 582 sw3d 919

  State v. Banks, 582 S.W.3d 919

  cited
• state v barriner 210 sw3d 285

  State v. Barriner, 210 S.W.3d 285

  cited
• state v bozarth 51 sw3d 179

  State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179

  cited
• state v brandolese 601 sw3d 519

  State v. Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d 519

  cited
• state v coyle 671 sw3d 702

  State v. Coyle, 671 S.W.3d 702

  cited
• state v davis 348 sw3d 768

  State v. Davis, 348 S.W.3d 768

  cited
• state v denham 686 sw3d 357

  State v. Denham, 686 S.W.3d 357

  cited
• state v dighera 617 sw2d 524

  State v. Dighera, 617 S.W.2d 524

  cited
• state v dodd 711 sw3d 619

  State v. Dodd, 711 S.W.3d 619

  cited
• state v dodd 712 sw3d 454

  State v. Dodd, 712 S.W.3d 454

  cited
• state v driskill 459 sw3d 412

  State v. Driskill, 459 S.W.3d 412

  cited
• state v gannan 658 sw3d 103

  State v. Gannan, 658 S.W.3d 103

  cited
• state v hilbert 663 sw3d 7

  State v. Hilbert, 663 S.W.3d 7

  cited
• state v hughes 563 sw3d 119

  State v. Hughes, 563 S.W.3d 119

  cited
• state v lingar 726 sw2d 728

  State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728

  followed
• state v loper 609 sw3d 725

  State v. Loper, 609 S.W.3d 725

  cited
• state v ludwig 18 sw3d 139

  State v. Ludwig, 18 S.W.3d 139

  cited
• state v mcgee 284 sw3d 690

  State v. McGee, 284 S.W.3d 690

  cited
• state v palma 719 sw3d 798

  State v. Palma, 719 S.W.3d 798

  cited
• state v putfark 651 sw3d 869

  State v. Putfark, 651 S.W.3d 869

  cited
• state v ratliff 622 sw3d 736

  State v. Ratliff, 622 S.W.3d 736

  cited
• state v rutter 93 sw3d 714

  State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714

  cited
• state v scott 676 sw3d 336

  State v. Scott, 676 S.W.3d 336

  cited
• state v taylor 466 sw3d 521

  State v. Taylor, 466 S.W.3d 521

  cited
• state v taylor 588 sw3d 632

  State v. Taylor, 588 S.W.3d 632

  cited
• state v tisius 362 sw3d 398

  State v. Tisius, 362 S.W.3d 398

  cited
• state v warren 702 sw3d 48

  State v. Warren, 702 S.W.3d 48

  cited
• state v wood 580 sw3d 566

  State v. Wood, 580 S.W.3d 566

  cited
• supreme court held in state v celis garcia 344 sw3d 150

  Supreme Court held in State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150

  cited
• tisius v state 519 sw3d 413

  Tisius v. State, 519 S.W.3d 413

  followed
• we are mindful that in state v thompson 711 sw3d 339

  We are mindful that in State v. Thompson, 711 S.W.3d 339

  cited
• witnesses cannot testify as to others intentions vescovo v kingsland 628 sw3d 645

  Witnesses cannot testify as to others' intentions. Vescovo v. Kingsland, 628 S.W.3d 645

  cited

1. Issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting generalized expert testimony about domestic abuse over a logical relevancy objection.

   The trial court did not abuse its discretion because the testimony became logically relevant to counter the defendant's theory that the victim's delayed reporting indicated she was at fault for her injuries.

   Standard of review: abuse of discretion

2. Issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of the victim regarding whether her injuries would have occurred if she had not struck the defendant first.

   The trial court did not abuse its discretion because the question called for speculation and testimony not based on the witness's personal first-hand knowledge.

   Standard of review: abuse of discretion

3. Issue: Whether the trial court plainly erred by submitting an incomplete definition of "knowingly" in the jury instructions for first-degree domestic assault.

   No plain error occurred because the submitted definition conformed with one of the authorized MAI-CR definitions, and the defendant failed to establish evident, obvious, or clear error or manifest injustice.

   Standard of review: plain error review