# State v. Koetting

> Supreme Court of Missouri · May 11, 1981 · 616 S.W.2d 822

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652988

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald KOETTING, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** May 11, 1981
- **Citations:** 616 S.W.2d 822; 1981 Mo. LEXIS 353
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bardgett
- **Judges:** Donnelly, Rendlen, Welliver, Morgan, Higgins, Bardgett, Seiler
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652988

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating “the criminality of the conduct is measured in the [harassment] statute not by the unpredictable effect upon third persons, but by the mental state of the actor”

## Opinion text

BARDGETT, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent as to the holding reference instructing the jury regarding the punishment of a fine.
In my opinion the jury must be instructed as to the fine. It may well be that the matters required to be considered in arriving at the amount of the fine are such that the jury could not be given the information without prejudicing the case. In my opinion the jury should be instructed that it may declare by its verdict that the punishment shall be a fine and not imprisonment. This would, at least, let the jury know of the fine option and let it decide what type of punishment is appropriate. In short, the jury should have the option of rejecting imprisonment in favor of a fine.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652988. Public record. Not legal advice.