green
Positive treatment
6.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Missouri v. Samuel Meeks
Had the instruction only listed “physical force” as the means by which Meeks resisted, his pushing back is likely the type of muscle exertion that has 7 repeatedly been held sufficient to constitute “physical force.” See State v. Belton, 108 S.W.3d 171, 175 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (defendant refused to get out car and stiffened body to prevent officer from pulling him out of car); State v. M.L.S., 275 S.W.3d 293, 300 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (defendant “stiffened his arms using muscle pressure to resist his being handcuffed behind his back”); State v. Miller, 172 S.W.3d 838, 844-46 (Mo. A…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Meeks
Had the instruction only listed “physical force” as the means by which Meeks resisted, his pushing back is likely the type of muscle exertion that has repeatedly been held sufficient to constitute “physical force.” See State v. Belton, 108 S.W.3d 171, 175 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) (defendant refused to get out car and stiffened body to prevent officer from pulling him out of car); State v. M.L.S., 275 S.W.3d 293, 300 (Mo.App.W.D.2008) (defendant “stiffened his arms using muscle pressure to resist his being handcuffed behind his back”); State v. Miller, 172 S.W.3d 838, 844-46 (Mo.App.S.D.20…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Raymond Hollis
Stat. § 575.150 , is not necessarily a crime of violence because the statute encompasses “passive resistance.” For this proposition he cites State v. Feagan, 835 S.W.2d 448, 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), where the defendant was convicted of resisting arrest after threatening violence and “stiffening his arms” to resist being handcuffed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Raymond H. Hollis
Hollis argues that resisting arrest, as defined by Mo.Rev.Stat. § 575.150, is not necessarily a crime of violence because the statute encompasses “passive resistance.” For this proposition he cites State v. Feagan, 835 S.W.2d 448, 450 (Mo.Ct.App.1992), where the defendant was convicted of resisting arrest after threatening violence and “stiffening his arms” to resist being handcuffed.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bickings
See State v. Feagan, 835 S.W.2d 448 (Mo.App.1992), and State v. Reynolds, 723 S.W.2d 400 (Mo.App.1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ondo
W.D.2003) (where the court found that the arrest was still in progress where the defendant had been handcuffed, but was not yet in the patrol car when the resistance occurred); see also State v. Feagan, 835 S.W.2d 448, 450 (Mo.App.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Missouri
v.
Roy Marvin WINFREY
v.
Roy Marvin WINFREY
No. WD 44687.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jun 16, 1992.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Carroll County; Charles H. Sloan, Judge., James F. Crews, Tipton, for appellant., William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert P. Sass, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Breckenridge, Hanna, Shangler.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.Appeal from conviction of driving while intoxicated, § 577.010 RSMo, Supp.1992.
Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).