188 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 23 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. Browngreen2 sentences2023Id. “[U]nless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ this Court will decline . . . to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995). 2022“Plain error review is discretionary.” Id. at 526. “[U]nless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ this Court will decline to exercise its discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995). | 40 | 45 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2019“A claim of plain error places a much greater burden on a defendant than an assertion of prejudicial error.” State v. Wright, 216 S.W.3d 196, 199 (Mo. App. 2007). 2019“A claim of plain error places a much greater burden on a defendant than an assertion of prejudicial error.” State v. Wright, 216 S.W.3d 196, 199 (Mo. App. 2007). | 12 | 12 |
State v. Chaneygreen2 sentences2003“Unless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ this [cjoui't will decline to exercise its discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” Chaney, 967 S.W.2d at 59 (quoting State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 592 (Mo. banc 1997)). 2002“Unless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ this [c]ourt will decline to exercise its discre *556 tion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” Chaney at 59 (quoting Roberts at 592 ). | 10 | 13 |
State v. Baxtergreen2 sentences2025“To obtain a new trial on direct appeal based on a claim of plain error, the appellant must show ‘the error was outcome determinative.’” State v. Wood, 580 S.W.3d 566 , 579 (Mo. banc 2019) (quoting State v. Baxter, 204 S.W.3d 650, 652 (Mo. banc 2006)). 2024“To obtain a new trial on direct appeal based on a claim of plain error, the appellant must show ‘the error was outcome determinative.’” Wood, 580 S.W.3d at 579 (quoting State v. Baxter, 204 S.W.3d 650, 652 (Mo. banc 2006)). | 10 | 10 |
State v. Eastgreen2 sentences2011M; State v. East, 976 S.W.2d 507, 509-10 (Mo.App.1998). 2009Id.; State v. East, 976 S.W.2d 507, 509-10 (Mo.App.1998). | 5 | 5 |
State v. DeWeesegreen2 sentences2011State v. DeWeese, 79 S.W.3d 456, 457 (Mo.App. 2008State v. DeWeese, 79 S.W.3d 456, 457 (Mo.App. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Bozarthgreen2 sentences2004To determine whether to conduct plain error review, this court first determines whether the claim of plain error facially “establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Id. 2003First, 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. | 3 | 6 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2015However, if facially substantial grounds do not exist, this Court will decline to exercise its discretion to review the claim of plain error, Id. at 561 (“Rule 30.20 is no panacea which a criminal defendant can use to obtain appellate review of any alleged error that is unpreserved.”). 2011We will grant relief on a claim of plain error in closing argument only if the challenged statement had a “decisive effect on the jury.” State v. White, 247 S.W.3d 557, 563 (Mo.App. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2005Under plain error review, an appellate court “should first examine 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. Rogers, 51 S.W.3d 879, 880 (Mo.App. 2005Under plain error review, an appellate court “should first examine 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. Rogers, 51 S.W.3d 879, 880 (Mo.App. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Ropergreen2 sentences2024In other words, “[t]o hold that a miscarriage of justice or a manifest injustice occurred, we must determine that there is a reasonable probability that the jury's verdict would have been different, had the error not taken place.” State v. Roper, 136 S.W.3d 891, 903 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). 2014The outcome of plain error review, furthermore, “depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.” State v. Roper, 136 S.W.3d 891, 900 (Mo. App. 2004). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dowellgreen2 sentences2008“The rule makes it clear that not all prejudicial error — that is, reversible error — can be deemed plain error.” State v. Dowell, 25 S.W.3d 594, 606 (Mo.App.2000). 2003“The rule makes it clear that not all prejudicial error — that is, reversible error — can be deemed plain error.” State v. Dowell, 25 S.W.3d 594, 606 (Mo.App.2000). | 3 | 3 |
Mayes v. Newberrygreen2 sentences2008This court observed in the memorandum it provided in support of the order that affirmed movant’s conviction that Vinson’s testimony was that "she had pleaded guilty to a felony, the offense of forgery, in Jackson County, Missouri, before moving to the place where she resided at the time of trial.” 3 . "[U]nless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that 'manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ [an appellate court] will decline to exercise its discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 592 2003See State v. Lewis, 955 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Mo.App.1997). “[UJnless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ this Court will decline to exercise its discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031 , 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995) (emphasis added) (quoting Rule 30.20). | 2 | 20 |
Wilkerson v. Mosleygreen2 sentences2008This court observed in the memorandum it provided in support of the order that affirmed movant’s conviction that Vinson’s testimony was that "she had pleaded guilty to a felony, the offense of forgery, in Jackson County, Missouri, before moving to the place where she resided at the time of trial.” 3 . "[U]nless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that 'manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ [an appellate court] will decline to exercise its discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 592 2003See State v. Lewis, 955 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Mo.App.1997). “[UJnless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ this Court will decline to exercise its discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1031 , 116 S.Ct. 679 , 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995) (emphasis added) (quoting Rule 30.20). | 2 | 13 |
Deck v. Stategreen2 sentences2011In the absence of an [outcome determinative error in a direct appeal], no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice exists and the appellate court should decline to exercise its discretion to review the claim of plain error pursuant to Rule 30.20. [Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 427-28 (Mo. banc 2002) ]. 2011Id. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2008This court observed in the memorandum it provided in support of the order that affirmed movant’s conviction that Vinson’s testimony was that "she had pleaded guilty to a felony, the offense of forgery, in Jackson County, Missouri, before moving to the place where she resided at the time of trial.” 3 . "[U]nless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that 'manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ [an appellate court] will decline to exercise its discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 592 2003“Unless a claim of plain error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,’ this [cjoui't will decline to exercise its discretion to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.” Chaney, 967 S.W.2d at 59 (quoting State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 592 (Mo. banc 1997)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. McGuiregreen2 sentences2023Id; State v. Smith, 370 S.W.3d 891, 894 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). 2013Where a claim of plain error “facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted,” we may exercise review to determine whether such injustice actually occurred, Id. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Brinkgreen2 sentences2014If the claim of plain error facially establishes grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice resulted, we may elect to exercise our discretion and proceed “ ‘to the second step to consider whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected.’ ” Warren, 304 S.W.3d at 799 (quoting State v. Brink, 218 S.W.3d 440, 448 (Mo.App. 2014If the claim of plain error facially establishes grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice resulted, we may elect to exercise our discretion and proceed “„to the second step to consider whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected.‟” Warren, 304 S.W.3d at 799 (quoting State v. Brink, 218 S.W.3d 440, 448 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2007State v. Brooks, 158 S.W.3d 841, 853 (Mo.App. 2006“A claim of plain error alleging errors committed in closing arguments does not justify relief on appeal unless” the defendant proves that the error had “a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Brooks, 158 S.W.3d 841, 853 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Schlupgreen2 sentences2005State v. Schlup, 785 S.W.2d 796, 802 (Mo.App. 1993The court in State v. Schlup, 785 S.W.2d 796, 802 (Mo.App.1990), stated, “[rjelief should rarely be granted on an assertion of plain error to matters contained in arguments because trial strategy looms as an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explication.” The court further stated that a claim of plain error alleging errors committed during closing arguments does not justify relief on appeal unless determined to have a decisive effect on the jury. | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Howardgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Valentinegreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Burgessgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Shaffergreen2 sentences2021“In deciding whether or not to grant plain error review, this Court must first examine 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. Shaffer, 251 S.W.3d 356, 358 (Mo. App. 2008). 2017“In the absence of an error of this magnitude, no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice exists and the appellate court should decline to exercise its discretion to review the claim of plain error pursuant to Rule 30.20.” Shaffer, 251 S.W.3d at 358 . | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Ralstongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Deangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Blackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anderson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Barrinergreen | 1 | 1 |
| STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. BOBBY GLEN ROSTgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Claygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Strong v. American Cyanamid Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McFaddengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jenningsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Garrisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State of Missouri v. Matthew R. Burnettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Castoegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Calhoungreen | 1 | 1 |
| State of Missouri v. Thomas A. Essgreen | 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. Campbell
green
2 sentences2009“If facially substantial grounds are not found to exist, the appellate court should decline to exercise its discretion to review the claim of plain error pursuant to Rule 30.20.” Id. 2007“If facially substantial grounds are not found to exist, the appellate court should decline to exercise its discretion to review the claim of plain error pursuant to Rule 30.20.” Id. | 7 | 2007–2020 |
Rosenberg v. Arlington County Government
green
2 sentences2011Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607 ; Edwards, 116 S.W.3d at 536-37 ; State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 59 (Mo. banc 1998), cert denied, 525 U.S. 1021 , 119 S.Ct. 551 , 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998). 2008State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 59 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021 , 119 S.Ct. 551 , 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998). | 5 | 2003–2011 |
Williams v. Francis
green
2 sentences2011Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607 ; Edwards, 116 S.W.3d at 536-37 ; State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 59 (Mo. banc 1998), cert denied, 525 U.S. 1021 , 119 S.Ct. 551 , 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998). 2008State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 59 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021 , 119 S.Ct. 551 , 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998). | 5 | 2003–2011 |
Lockhart v. United States
green
2 sentences2011Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d at 607 ; Edwards, 116 S.W.3d at 536-37 ; State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 59 (Mo. banc 1998), cert denied, 525 U.S. 1021 , 119 S.Ct. 551 , 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998). 2008State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 59 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021 , 119 S.Ct. 551 , 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998). | 5 | 2003–2011 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1997We will, however, consider related claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to preserve the alleged trial error under the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 1997We will, however, consider related claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to preserve the alleged trial error under the test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 4 | 1995–1997 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 603 . 2011Id. at 603 . | 3 | 2007–2012 |
State of Missouri v. Cornell McKay
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2024Id. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Warren
green
2 sentences2014If the claim of plain error facially establishes grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice resulted, we may elect to exercise our discretion and proceed “ ‘to the second step to consider whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected.’ ” Warren, 304 S.W.3d at 799 (quoting State v. Brink, 218 S.W.3d 440, 448 (Mo.App. 2014If the claim of plain error facially establishes grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice resulted, we may elect to exercise our discretion and proceed “„to the second step to consider whether or not a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice will occur if the error is left uncorrected.‟” Warren, 304 S.W.3d at 799 (quoting State v. Brink, 218 S.W.3d 440, 448 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2009First, we must "determine whether the claim of plain error, on its face, establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred." Id. 2009First, we must “determine whether the claim of plain error, on its face, establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2006Johnson, 150 S.W.3d at 136 . | 2 | 2006–2008 |
| Grado v. State green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Sinyard green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Conn green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Baumruk green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Edwards green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Edwards green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Golden green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Care and Treatment of Heikes v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Libberton v. Arizona green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.
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.