defendant offers a correct instruction (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

defendant offers a correct instruction in Missouri

6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1938–1973 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Fraleygreen
mo · 1938 · cited in 4 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1943–1973
2 sentences

1973For instance, as said in State v. Fraley, 342 Mo. 442 , 116 S.W. 2d 17, 20 [2-4] (1938): “We therefore rule that in all criminal cases, if a defendant offers a correct instruction as the converse of the State’s main instruction, it should be given, unless fully and fairly covered by other instructions.

1973For instance, as said in State v. Fraley, 342 Mo. 442 , 116 S.W. 2d 17, 20 [2-4] (1938): “We therefore rule that in all criminal cases, if a defendant offers a correct instruction as the converse of the State’s main instruction, it should be given, unless fully and fairly covered by other instructions.

24
State v. Quinngreen
mo · 1939 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1943–1956
2 sentences

1943State v. Fraley, 342 Mo. 442, 447 , 116 S. W. (2d) 17, 20 , states the rule thus: “We therefore rule that in all criminal cases, if a defendant offers a correct instruction as the converse of the State’s main instruction, it should be given, unless fully and fairly covered by other instructions”; holding that the frequently found conclusions to the State’s main instruction, i. e., “. . . and unless you so find you'will acquit the defendant” affords no legal reason for refusing “a correct converse instruction offered by the defendant.” State v. Quinn, 344 Mo. 1072, 1075 (III), 130 S. W. (2d) 51

1943State v. Fraley, 342 Mo. 442, 447 , 116 S. W. (2d) 17, 20 , states the rule thus: “We therefore rule that in all criminal cases, if a defendant offers a correct instruction as the converse of the State’s main instruction, it should be given, unless fully and fairly covered by other instructions”; holding that the frequently found conclusions to the State’s main instruction, i. e., “. . . and unless you so find you'will acquit the defendant” affords no legal reason for refusing “a correct converse instruction offered by the defendant.” State v. Quinn, 344 Mo. 1072, 1075 (III), 130 S. W. (2d) 51

22
State v. Murphygreen
mo · 1967 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973
2 sentences

1973We rule that the practice of concluding the State's main instruction with the following words, `* * * and unless you so find you will acquit,' or words of like import, is not a sufficient reason for refusing a correct converse instruction offered by the defendant." This court en banc, State v. Murphy, Mo., 415 S.W.2d 758, 759, 760 , approved the statements herein set out in the Engberg and Fraley cases and went on to hold that where defendant presented two defenses, to wit, that she was not the person who committed the crime, and an alibi of showing her presence somewhere else, she had the rig

1973We rule that the practice of concluding the State’s main instruction with the following words, ' * * * and unless you so find you will acquit,’ or words of like import, is not a sufficient reason for refusing a correct converse instruction offered by the defendant.” This court en banc, State v. Murphy, Mo., 415 S.W.2d 758, 759, 760 , approved the statements herein set out in the Eng-berg and Fraley cases and went on to hold that where defendant presented two defenses, to wit, that she was not the person who committed the crime, and an alibi of showing her presence somewhere else, she had the r

11
State v. Talbertgreen
mo · 1943 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1956–1956
2 sentences

1956We rule that the practice of concluding the State’s main instruction with the following words, * * and unless you so find you will acquit,’ or words of like import, is not a sufficient reason for refusing a correct converse instruction offered by the defendant.” State v. Fraley, 342 Mo. 442 , 116 S.W.2d 17, 20 [2, 4]; State v. Quinn, 344 Mo. 1072 , 130 S.W.2d 511, 513 [3]; State v. Talbert, 351 Mo. 791 , 174 S.W.2d 144, 145 [3].

1956We rule that the practice of concluding the State’s main instruction with the following words, * * and unless you so find you will acquit,’ or words of like import, is not a sufficient reason for refusing a correct converse instruction offered by the defendant.” State v. Fraley, 342 Mo. 442 , 116 S.W.2d 17, 20 [2, 4]; State v. Quinn, 344 Mo. 1072 , 130 S.W.2d 511, 513 [3]; State v. Talbert, 351 Mo. 791 , 174 S.W.2d 144, 145 [3].

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Boyd green
mo · 1946
2 sentences

1948It is contended that this instruction "covered the only defense which the defendant had in the case," and the only contested issue, since "the defendant impliedly admitted all of the other facts incorporated in Instruction No. 1." Appellant says that it was a proper converse instruction; that Instruction 1 did not "so fairly and fully present his defense to the jury;" and that he was entitled to "a converse instruction presenting fairly and fully his viewpoint of the defense." Appellant relies on State v. Boyd, 354 Mo. 1172 , 193 S.W.2d 596 ; State v. Fraley, 342 Mo. 422 , 116 S.W.2d 17 , and

1948It is contended that this instruction "covered the only defense which the defendant had in the case," and the only contested issue, since "the defendant impliedly admitted all of the other facts incorporated in Instruction No. 1." Appellant says that it was a proper converse instruction; that Instruction 1 did not "so fairly and fully present his defense to the jury;" and that he was entitled to "a converse instruction presenting fairly and fully his viewpoint of the defense." Appellant relies on State v. Boyd, 354 Mo. 1172 , 193 S.W.2d 596 ; State v. Fraley, 342 Mo. 422 , 116 S.W.2d 17 , and

11948–1948
State v. Ledbetter green
mo · 1933
2 sentences

1938Some of the later cases so holding are: State v. Ledbetter, 332 Mo. 225 , 58 S.W.2d 453 , l.c. 454; State v. Buckner, 80 S.W.2d 167 , l.c. 169; State v. Whitchurch, 339 Mo. 116 , 96 S.W.2d 30 , l.c. 34 (2, 3); State v. Day, 339 Mo. 74 , 95 S.W.2d 1183 , l.c. 1186 (9, 10); State v. Campbell, 84 S.W.2d 618 , l.c. 620 (4); State v. Stewart, 29 S.W.2d 120 , l.c. 123 (4).

1938Some of the later cases so holding are: State v. Ledbetter, 332 Mo. 225 , 58 S.W.2d 453 , l.c. 454; State v. Buckner, 80 S.W.2d 167 , l.c. 169; State v. Whitchurch, 339 Mo. 116 , 96 S.W.2d 30 , l.c. 34 (2, 3); State v. Day, 339 Mo. 74 , 95 S.W.2d 1183 , l.c. 1186 (9, 10); State v. Campbell, 84 S.W.2d 618 , l.c. 620 (4); State v. Stewart, 29 S.W.2d 120 , l.c. 123 (4).

11938–1938
State v. Day green
mo · 1936
2 sentences

1938Some of the later cases so holding are: State v. Ledbetter, 332 Mo. 225 , 58 S.W.2d 453 , l.c. 454; State v. Buckner, 80 S.W.2d 167 , l.c. 169; State v. Whitchurch, 339 Mo. 116 , 96 S.W.2d 30 , l.c. 34 (2, 3); State v. Day, 339 Mo. 74 , 95 S.W.2d 1183 , l.c. 1186 (9, 10); State v. Campbell, 84 S.W.2d 618 , l.c. 620 (4); State v. Stewart, 29 S.W.2d 120 , l.c. 123 (4).

1938Some of the later cases so holding are: State v. Ledbetter, 332 Mo. 225 , 58 S.W.2d 453 , l.c. 454; State v. Buckner, 80 S.W.2d 167 , l.c. 169; State v. Whitchurch, 339 Mo. 116 , 96 S.W.2d 30 , l.c. 34 (2, 3); State v. Day, 339 Mo. 74 , 95 S.W.2d 1183 , l.c. 1186 (9, 10); State v. Campbell, 84 S.W.2d 618 , l.c. 620 (4); State v. Stewart, 29 S.W.2d 120 , l.c. 123 (4).

11938–1938
State v. Whitchurch green
mo · 1936
2 sentences

1938Some of the later cases so holding are: State v. Ledbetter, 332 Mo. 225 , 58 S.W.2d 453 , l.c. 454; State v. Buckner, 80 S.W.2d 167 , l.c. 169; State v. Whitchurch, 339 Mo. 116 , 96 S.W.2d 30 , l.c. 34 (2, 3); State v. Day, 339 Mo. 74 , 95 S.W.2d 1183 , l.c. 1186 (9, 10); State v. Campbell, 84 S.W.2d 618 , l.c. 620 (4); State v. Stewart, 29 S.W.2d 120 , l.c. 123 (4).

1938Some of the later cases so holding are: State v. Ledbetter, 332 Mo. 225 , 58 S.W.2d 453 , l.c. 454; State v. Buckner, 80 S.W.2d 167 , l.c. 169; State v. Whitchurch, 339 Mo. 116 , 96 S.W.2d 30 , l.c. 34 (2, 3); State v. Day, 339 Mo. 74 , 95 S.W.2d 1183 , l.c. 1186 (9, 10); State v. Campbell, 84 S.W.2d 618 , l.c. 620 (4); State v. Stewart, 29 S.W.2d 120 , l.c. 123 (4).

11938–1938

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check