Section 23.2 Matters Judicially Noticed

• Library: Criminal Practice 2012 Supp

B. (§23.2) Matters Judicially Noticed

Courts have taken judicial notice of a large number of matters. The following is a nonexhaustive list of these matters:

Statutes and constitution of the state, City of St. Joseph v. Roller, 363 S.W.2d 609, 611 (Mo. 1963); Burton v. State, 641 S.W.2d 95 (Mo. banc 1982), even if there is not a specific request or specific proof offered by the parties, State v. James, 796 S.W.2d 398, 399 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990).

Charters of Missouri home rule cities, Mo. Const. art. VI, § 19, and counties, Mo. Const. art. VI, § 18(j). Forste v. Benton, 792 S.W.2d 910, 914 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990).

Federal statutes. Miller v. Medley, 281 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. 1955); § 490.080, RSMo 2000.

The rules and regulations of federal administrative agencies, Fredrick v. Bensen Aircraft Corp., 436 S.W.2d 765, 769 (Mo. App. S.D. 1968), and state administrative agencies, § 536.031, RSMo Supp. 2004, including the Code of State Regulations. State ex rel. Gordon v. Copeland, 803 S.W.2d 153, 159 n.8 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991); Birdnow v. Dir. of Revenue, 767 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989).

That bloodhounds are frequently used to apprehend escapees. State v. Fields, 434 S.W.2d 507 (Mo. 1968).

That a “steel or iron bar 1 to 1½ inches in diameter and 12 to 15 inches in length,” if “repeatedly wielded as a bludgeon to strike a victim about the head and neck until unconscious” would qualify as a “dangerous instrument” under § 556.061(9), RSMo Supp. 2004. State v. Seagraves, 700 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985).

Automobile stopping distance. State v. Overkamp, 865 S.W.2d 376, 387 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993).

Distance between cities. State ex rel. Leonard Trucking Co. v. Div. of Transp., Dep’t of Econ. Dev., 825 S.W.2d 19 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992).

The average walking speed of a person. State v. Burley, 523 S.W.2d 575, 579 (Mo. App. W.D. 1975); Miller v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 389 S.W.2d 769 (Mo. 1965).

A court can judicially notice its own records, State v. Johnson, 714 S.W.2d 752, 764 (Mo. App. W.D. 1986), including supplementary proceedings that are ancillary to the criminal proceeding, Turner v. State, 669 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984). Thus, in a post-conviction proceeding, the motion court can take judicial notice of the trial transcript even if it was not introduced at the post-conviction hearing. Hodge v. State, 749 S.W.2d 423, 424 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988).

If a trial court takes judicial notice of its records in another case, however, it should cause the record to disclose the precise matters it has so considered. State v. Cullen, 646 S.W.2d 850, 855 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982). The Supreme Court of Missouri has noticed records in another case before it. State v. Gilmore, 681 S.W.2d 934 (Mo. banc 1984); Prokopf v. Whaley, 592 S.W.2d 819 (Mo. banc...