Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pealgreen2 sentences1997“Such an attempt to avoid the logic of the law by contending there was an ‘accidental shooting of self-defense’ has been rejected” by the supreme court in that such a defense “would require a combination of two diametrically opposite theories.” State v. Peal, 463 S.W.2d 840, 842 (Mo.1971). 1976State v. Peal, 463 S.W.2d 840 (Mo.1971). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Whitchurchgreen2 sentences1997Missouri courts do not recognize the anomalous doctrine of accidental self-defense. 1 State v. Whitchurch, 339 Mo. 116 , 96 S.W.2d 30, 35 (Mo.1936). 1997Missouri courts do not recognize the anomalous doctrine of accidental self-defense. 1 State v. Whitchurch, 339 Mo. 116 , 96 S.W.2d 30, 35 (Mo.1936). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2007State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196, 201 (Mo. banc 2003), and State v. Randolph, 496 S.W.2d 257, 262 (Mo. banc 1973), also cited by the dissent in passing, likewise provide that accident and self-defense are inconsistent defenses. 2007State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196, 201 (Mo. banc 2003), and State v. Randolph, 496 S.W.2d 257, 262 (Mo. banc 1973), also cited by the dissent in passing, likewise provide that accident and self-defense are inconsistent defenses. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Averyred2 sentences2007State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196, 201 (Mo. banc 2003), and State v. Randolph, 496 S.W.2d 257, 262 (Mo. banc 1973), also cited by the dissent in passing, likewise provide that accident and self-defense are inconsistent defenses. 2007State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196, 201 (Mo. banc 2003), and State v. Randolph, 496 S.W.2d 257, 262 (Mo. banc 1973), also cited by the dissent in passing, likewise provide that accident and self-defense are inconsistent defenses. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Houcks
green
2 sentences2007Houcks noted that accident and self-defense are “diametrically opposite theories” and that “Missouri courts do not recognize the anomalous doctrine of accidental self-defense.” Id. 2007Houcks noted that accident and self-defense are "diametrically opposite theories" and that "Missouri courts do not recognize the anomalous doctrine of accidental self-defense." Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1936Rep. 511 ) and the law' does not recognize the anomalous doctrine of accidental self-defense. [State v. Smith, 114 Mo. 406 , 21 S. W. 827 .] The case is Unlike the line of which State v. Haines, 160 Mo. 555 , 61 S. W. 621 , is typical, wherein defendant contends one 'inoíneiit he shot deceased in self-defense and the next that- it was wholly accidental. 1936Rep. 511 ) and the law' does not recognize the anomalous doctrine of accidental self-defense. [State v. Smith, 114 Mo. 406 , 21 S. W. 827 .] The case is Unlike the line of which State v. Haines, 160 Mo. 555 , 61 S. W. 621 , is typical, wherein defendant contends one 'inoíneiit he shot deceased in self-defense and the next that- it was wholly accidental. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
State v. Haines
green
2 sentences1936Rep. 511 ) and the law' does not recognize the anomalous doctrine of accidental self-defense. [State v. Smith, 114 Mo. 406 , 21 S. W. 827 .] The case is Unlike the line of which State v. Haines, 160 Mo. 555 , 61 S. W. 621 , is typical, wherein defendant contends one 'inoíneiit he shot deceased in self-defense and the next that- it was wholly accidental. 1936Rep. 511 ) and the law' does not recognize the anomalous doctrine of accidental self-defense. [State v. Smith, 114 Mo. 406 , 21 S. W. 827 .] The case is Unlike the line of which State v. Haines, 160 Mo. 555 , 61 S. W. 621 , is typical, wherein defendant contends one 'inoíneiit he shot deceased in self-defense and the next that- it was wholly accidental. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.