tendered jury instruction (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

tendered jury instruction in Missouri

20 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2019 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 (9)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Davisgreen
moctapp · 2006 · cited in 6 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2016
2 sentences

2012“Submission or refusal to submit a tendered jury instruction is within [the] trial court’s discretion.” State v. Davis, 203 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Mo.App.

2011Point II — Failure to Instruct on Lesser Included Offense Standard of Review The “ ‘refusal to submit a tendered jury instruction is within the trial court’s discretion.’ ” State v. Davis, 203 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Mo.App.

66
State v. Smithgreen
moctapp · 1997 · cited in 5 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–2013
2 sentences

2013The “refusal to submit a tendered jury instruction is within the trial court’s discretion.” State v. Smith, 949 S.W.2d 901, 905 (Mo.App.1997).

2006He claims the trial court erred in giving Instruction 7 which: (1) does not correctly state the statutory mandate of Section 577.023; and (2) emphasizes specific evidence as opposed to an ultimate fact as prohibited by Rule 28.02(d). 1. “[S]ubmission or refusal to submit a tendered jury instruction is within trial court’s discretion.” State v. Smith, 949 S.W.2d 901, 905 (Mo.App.1997).

55
State v. McCabegreen
moctapp · 2011 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012State v. McCabe, 345 S.W.3d 311, 318 (Mo.App.

2012State v. McCabe, 345 S.W.3d 311, 318 (Mo.App.

22
State v. Hartmangreen
moctapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2008
2 sentences

2008State v. Hartman, 224 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Mo.App.2007).

2008State v. Hartman, 224 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Mo.App. 2007).

22
State v. Johnsongreen
mo · 2008 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2010–2019
2 sentences

2010“It is within the trial court’s discretion to decide whether a tendered jury instruction should be submitted.” Johnson, 244 S.W.3d at 150 .

2010"It is within the trial court's discretion to decide whether a tendered jury instruction should be submitted." Johnson, 244 S.W.3d at 150 .

12
State v. Leisuregreen
moctapp · 1991 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–2010
2 sentences

2010State v. Leisure, 810 S.W.2d 560 , 574 (Mo.App.1991).

1997State v. Leisure, 810 S.W.2d 560, 574 (Mo.App.1991).

12
State v. Coengreen
moctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016Point I — Jury Instructions Standard of Review “Our review of a trial court’s refusal to submit a tendered jury instruction is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its .discretion.” State v. Coen, 364 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). .“A trial court abuses its discretion if the ruling Is clearly, against the logic of the circumstances and- is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

2016Point I — Jury Instructions Standard of Review “Our review of a trial court’s refusal to submit a tendered jury instruction is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its .discretion.” State v. Coen, 364 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). .“A trial court abuses its discretion if the ruling Is clearly, against the logic of the circumstances and- is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

11
State v. Davisgreen
mo · 2010 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016However, a court is presumed to commit prejudicial error if it fails to use an applicable [Missouri Approved Instruction (MAI) ].” State v. Davis, 318 S.W.3d 618, 630 (Mo. banc 2010), Appellate courts determine whether the error was prejudicial to the defendant.

11
State v. Haleygreen
moctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008State v. Haley, 73 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Mo.App.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.020 (4) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.015 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

IN 97 (1985–2025) IL 42 (1980–2026) MO 20 (1997–2019) NM 12 (2010–2025) CO 11 (1988–2026) NE 3 (2017–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check