20 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2022 1 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. Carsongreen2 sentences2022Id. “‘A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.’” Children’s Wish Foundation Intern., Inc. v. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C., 331 S.W.3d 648, 650 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Mo. banc 1997)). 2011“A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.” State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Mo. banc 1997) (citing State v. Betts, 646 S.W.2d 94, 99 (Mo. banc 1983)). | 8 | 9 |
State v. Bettsgreen2 sentences2011“A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.” State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Mo. banc 1997) (citing State v. Betts, 646 S.W.2d 94, 99 (Mo. banc 1983)). 2009“A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.” State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Mo. banc 1997) (citing State v. Betts, 646 S.W.2d 94, 99 (Mo. banc 1983)). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Strugholdgreen2 sentences1999Id. 1999State v. Strughold, 973 S.W.2d 876, 884 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2 |
Children's Wish Foundation International, Inc. v. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C.green1 sentence2022Id. “‘A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.’” Children’s Wish Foundation Intern., Inc. v. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C., 331 S.W.3d 648, 650 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Mo. banc 1997)). | 1 | 1 |
John Templemire v. W&M Welding, Inc.green1 sentence2022“Prejudicial error ‘is an error that materially affected the merits and outcome of the case.’” Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371, 385 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting D.R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Erwingreen1 sentence2009“If the giving of [an] instruction is error, it will be held harmless only when the court can declare its belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476, 483 (Mo. banc 1993) (citing Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). “ ‘In order to preserve claims of instructional error for review, counsel is required to make specific objections to the instruction at trial and again raise the error in the motion for new trial.’ ” State v. Martin, 211 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2009“If the giving of [an] instruction is error, it will be held harmless only when the court can declare its belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476, 483 (Mo. banc 1993) (citing Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). “ ‘In order to preserve claims of instructional error for review, counsel is required to make specific objections to the instruction at trial and again raise the error in the motion for new trial.’ ” State v. Martin, 211 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Oldsgreen2 sentences1981The majority’s reliance on State v. Olds, 603 S.W.2d 501, 509-10 (Mo. banc 1980), in reversing defendant’s sodomy conviction, compounds this Court’s faulty analysis and conclusion in Olds (and its progeny) that the legislature did not intend to authorize multiple punishment on convictions of first degree felony murder and the felony (kidnapping) in connection with the killing. 1981In summarily concluding that “it cannot be demonstrated that the Missouri legislature intended to allow a court to separately punish a defendant both for felony-murder and the underlying felony...” because the relevant statutes do not contain a legislative “directive that a defendant may be separately punished if one offense is determined to be a lesser included of the other,” 603 S.W.2d at 510 , this Court in Olds ignored more than seventy years of Missouri legal history in which it has been completely undisputed that a defendant may be convicted of both felony murder and the underlying felon | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Savagegreen1 sentence1978Owens v. Savage, supra, at 200. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Adamsgreen1 sentence1976This phrase was held to have saved a faulty instruction in State v. Adams, 531 S.W.2d 763, 764 [1] (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hayes v. Price
green
1 sentence2022Id. “‘A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.’” Children’s Wish Foundation Intern., Inc. v. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C., 331 S.W.3d 648, 650 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Mo. banc 1997)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Bowman v. McDonald's Corp.
green
2 sentences2019Rather than engage in a Smith analysis of the threshold applicability of section 324A here, however, Plaintiff has engaged in the same faulty analysis used by the plaintiff in Bowman, supra. In that case, Bowman, a customer who was criminally assaulted at a restaurant, claimed that his petition set forth a cause of action under section 324A against McDonald’s Corporation, the restaurant’s franchisor, that his proposed Instruction F accurately presented that claim, and that the trial court erred in refusing to submit that instruction to the jury. 2019Bowman, 916 S.W.2d at 286 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Richards
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Tripp
green
1 sentence2010See, e.g., State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. banc 1997) (“A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.”); State v. Tripp, 939 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App.1997) (“Failure to give an MAI-CR instruction where appropriate is error and failure to follow an accompanying Note on Use is error.... | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Rose v. Clark
green
2 sentences2009“If the giving of [an] instruction is error, it will be held harmless only when the court can declare its belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476, 483 (Mo. banc 1993) (citing Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). “ ‘In order to preserve claims of instructional error for review, counsel is required to make specific objections to the instruction at trial and again raise the error in the motion for new trial.’ ” State v. Martin, 211 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Mo.App. 2009“If the giving of [an] instruction is error, it will be held harmless only when the court can declare its belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476, 483 (Mo. banc 1993) (citing Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)). “ ‘In order to preserve claims of instructional error for review, counsel is required to make specific objections to the instruction at trial and again raise the error in the motion for new trial.’ ” State v. Martin, 211 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Musielak v. International Shoe Co.
green
1 sentence2000Id. at 223 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Jimmerson
green
1 sentence1998The court concluded that, “[b]ecause the faulty instruction could not reasonably be read in the context of the facts presented at trial to expand the likelihood of conviction or the gamut of defendant’s criminal responsibility, we find that he has not been prejudiced by the instruction.” Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.