Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (1997)

Citation
State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (1997)
Parent Document
State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (1997)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1997-12-23

Other Sections in This Document (214)

Full Text

567 chars
. Throughout his argument on Point V, appellant complains about the prosecutor’s "testifying” about appellant’s alleged misconduct in prison. Appellant’s complaints implicate the rules that "it is improper to propound hypothetical questions which assume supposed facts” and “ '[cjross-examination should not be permitted to covertly convey to the minds of jurors suspicion and prejudice as to a defendant by a recital as facts of supposed matters not appearing in evidence and wholly outside of the case.’ ” Selle, 367 S.W.2d at 530 (quoting Pittman v. United States,