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.
31 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whited v. Stategreen2 sentences2022“Rather, ‘when the testimony of the witness would also negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, the testimony provides the movant with a viable defense.” Id. (quoting Whited v. State, 196 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006)). 9 In his amended motion, Movant alleged the first witness, Amber Easter, would have provided Movant with an alibi to the Illinois carjacking that preceded the shooting. 2017“When the testimony of [a witness] would only impeach the state’s witnesses, relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not warranted” unless “the testimony of the witness would also negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted,” thus “provid[ing] the movant with a viable defense.” Whited v. State, 196 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). | 3 | 7 |
Hays v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“When the testimony of the witness would negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, the testimony provides the movant with a viable defense.” Hays v. State, 360 S.W.3d 304, 310 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). “[C]ounsel’s decision not to call a witness is presumptively a matter of trial strategy” and Movant must “clearly establish otherwise.” Worthington, 166 S.W.3d at 577 . 2023“When the testimony of the witness would negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, the testimony provides the movant with a viable defense.” Hays, 360 S.W.3d at 310 . 6 Movant argues plea counsel failed to investigate Michael Copeland. | 2 | 3 |
Ferguson v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Ferguson v. State, 325 S.W.3d 400, 416-17 (Mo.App. 2012Ferguson v. State, 325 S.W.3d 400, 416-17 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2002State v. Williams, 945 S.W.2d 575, 582 (Mo.App.1997). 2001“In addition, the witness’ testimony must be such that it would have provided the movant with a viable defense.” State v. Williams, 945 S.W.2d 575, 582 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
McIntosh v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See McIntosh, 413 S.W.3d at 328 (holding that to find trial counsel ineffective for failing to call a witness, a movant must 13 establish that the witness would have provided testimony that would have provided the movant with a viable defense). 2022“Rather, ‘when the testimony of the witness would also negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, the testimony provides the movant with a viable defense.” Id. (quoting Whited v. State, 196 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006)). 9 In his amended motion, Movant alleged the first witness, Amber Easter, would have provided Movant with an alibi to the Illinois carjacking that preceded the shooting. | 1 | 3 |
George E. Martin v. State of Missourigreen2 sentences2025“Failure to call a witness only constitutes ineffective 5 assistance of counsel if the witness’s testimony unqualifiedly supports Movant.” Martin, 655 S.W.3d at 200 (internal quotation and brackets omitted). 2024“Failure to call a witness only constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel if the witness’s testimony ‘unqualifiedly support[s] Movant.’” Martin v. State, 655 S.W.3d 195 , 200 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Phillips v. State, 214 S.W.3d 361, 366 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007)). | 1 | 2 |
Anthony Clay v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2025“A witness’s testimony provides a movant with a viable defense when it negates an element of the crime for which the movant was convicted.” Clay v. State, 468 S.W.3d 914, 920 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence2024“Failure to call a witness only constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel if the witness’s testimony ‘unqualifiedly support[s] Movant.’” Martin v. State, 655 S.W.3d 195 , 200 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Phillips v. State, 214 S.W.3d 361, 366 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Stategreen1 sentence2020“However, when the testimony of the witness would also negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, the testimony provides the movant with a viable defense.” Id.; see also Black v. State, 151 S.W.3d 49 , 57–58 (Mo. banc 2004) (finding IAC prejudice where unoffered evidence “went to a central, controverted issue on which the jury focused during deliberations”). 10 Here, the crimes for which Movant was charged required the State to prove that Movant subjected G.F. to forcible compulsion. 5 As relevant here, the motion court found that 1) Movant’s defense theory at trial was t | 1 | 1 |
Aundra Woods v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2017Woods v. State, 458 S.W.3d 352, 366-67 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Jerry A. Rutlin, Movant/Appellant v. State of Missourigreen1 sentence2017“Where a witness’s testimony would not unqualifiedly support the defense, counsel’s decision not to call the witness does not constitute ineffective assistance.” Rutlin v. State, 435 S.W.3d 126, 132 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Rather, “when the testimony of the witness would also negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, the testimony provides the movant with a viable defense.” Id. (citing Williams *529 v. State, 8 S.W.3d 217, 219-20 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Jamerson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Jamerson v. State, 410 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallgreen1 sentence2010“Failure to impeach a witness does not automatically entitle [Ferguson] to post-conviction relief.” State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 687 (Mo. banc 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Wilkes v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Wilkes v. State, 82 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Mo. banc 2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McCrackengreen1 sentence2000State v. McCracken, 948 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tubbsgreen1 sentence1998State v. Tubbs, 806 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Buchanangreen1 sentence1997State v. Buchanan, 836 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Mo.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsongreen1 sentence1995State v. Williamson, 877 S.W.2d 258, 262 (Mo.App.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martin v. State
green
2 sentences2024When the testimony of such a witness would have been offered to impeach a State witness, “relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not warranted unless the testimony of the witness would also negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, thus providing the movant with a viable defense.” Id. 2023When the testimony of such a witness would have been offered to impeach a State witness, “relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not warranted unless the testimony of the witness would also negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, thus providing the movant with a viable defense.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006Id. at 441 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Jeffrey Weinhaus v. State of Missouri
green
1 sentence2025“Rather, when the testimony of the witness would also negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, the testimony provides the movant with a viable defense.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Worthington v. State
green
1 sentence2024“When the testimony of the witness would negate an element of the crime for which a movant was convicted, the testimony provides the movant with a viable defense.” Hays v. State, 360 S.W.3d 304, 310 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). “[C]ounsel’s decision not to call a witness is presumptively a matter of trial strategy” and Movant must “clearly establish otherwise.” Worthington, 166 S.W.3d at 577 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
ROBERT A. VALLEY v. STATE OF MISSOURI
neutral
1 sentence2024Valley v. State, 679 S.W.3d 133 , 137 (Mo. App. 2023) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
White v. State
green
2 sentences2021“Courts should rarely second-guess counsel’s strategic choices, such as whether to call a witness to testify, if counsel made the strategic choice after a thorough investigation of the law and the facts relevant to plausible opinions.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). 2021“A witness’s testimony provides a movant with a viable defense when it negates an element of the crime for which the movant was convicted.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.