State v. Bozarth (2001)

green · 41 citation events across 1 courts. Showing the 14 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 14

Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

200220142026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green State of Missouri v. Bradley Ise (2015)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

This argument ignores that we found in State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 182 (Mo.App.2001), that “knowingly” in its commonly understood sense is consistent with the definition set forth in MAI 3d 333.00.

green State v. Harrell (2011)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo.App.

green State v. Shaffer (2008)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo.App.

green State v. Ramirez (2004)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 181 (MoApp.

green State v. Banks (2004)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

Plain error is “evident, obvious and clear error” which facially “establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred.” State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo.App. 2001).

green State v. Farris (2004)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

Rule 30.20 provides that “plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” “ ‘Plain error’ is evident, obvious and clear error.” State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo.App.2001).

green State v. Kennedy (2003)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

First, we determine “whether the claim of plain error is one that, on its face, establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred.” State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo.App.

green State v. Washington (2002)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

First, we decide "whether the claim of plain error is one that, on its face, establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred." State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo.App.

green State v. Washington (2002)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

First, we decide “whether the claim of plain error is one that, on its face, establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred.” State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo.App.

green State v. DeWeese (2002)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

It grants us authority to review plain error only if we find manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice, but making a finding of manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice seems tantamount to review.” State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo.App.2001).

green State v. Schneider (2002)

Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.

green State of Missouri v. Nathan R. Hendricks (2021)

Cited (see also) · Mo. Ct. App. · signal: see also

Id. at 256; see also State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 182 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (concluding that a jury instruction that omitted the definition of knowingly but instead directed the jury to find the defendant guilty if he attempted to escape from confinement "for the purpose of escaping" did not result in a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice because acting knowingly is established if a person acts purposely).7 Point One is denied.

green Manwarren v. State (2007)

Cited · Mo. Ct. App. · signal: see

See State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179,182 (Mo.App.2001); State v. Matheson, 919 S.W.2d 553, 558-59 (Mo. App.1996) (“where an instruction uses a word in its ordinary, common-sense meaning, then no confusion occurs simply because the word is not defined”).

green State v. Guyton (2005)

Cited · Mo. Ct. App. · signal: see

See State v. Bozarth, 51 S.W.3d 179, 182 (Mo. App. W.D.2001) (failure to define “knowingly” in instruction on attempted escape from confinement 2 did not lower State’s burden of proof because instruction also required finding that defendant acted with purpose of escaping).