18 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1917–2025 2 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. Morrowgreen2 sentences2025"Manifest injustice results when a defendant meets his burden of injecting the issue of self-defense into the case but the trial court does not submit an instruction on the issue to the jury regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction." Id. at 307-08 7 (quoting State v. Morrow, 41 S.W.3d 56, 59 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)). 2024In fact, “[o]nce there is a finding of error in failing to properly instruct on [defense of another], a manifest injustice will generally be found.” State v. Hiltibidal, 292 S.W.3d at 488, 495 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009); State v. Morrow, 41 S.W.3d 56, 59 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (“Manifest injustice results when a defendant meets his burden of injecting the issue of self-defense into the case but the trial court does not submit an instruction on the issue to the jury regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction.”). 16 When a jury is not properly instructed, appellate courts are left to c | 3 | 4 |
State v. Derenzygreen2 sentences2015State v. Derenzy, 89 S.W.3d 472, 474 (Mo. banc 2002). 2012State v. Derenzy, 89 S.W.3d 472, 474 (Mo. banc 2002). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pridegreen2 sentences1986State v. Pride, 567 S.W.2d 426, 430-31 [3, 4] (Mo.App.1978). 1986State v. Pride, 567 S.W.2d 426, 430-31 [3, 4] (Mo.App.1978). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hiltibidalgreen1 sentence2024In fact, “[o]nce there is a finding of error in failing to properly instruct on [defense of another], a manifest injustice will generally be found.” State v. Hiltibidal, 292 S.W.3d at 488, 495 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009); State v. Morrow, 41 S.W.3d 56, 59 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (“Manifest injustice results when a defendant meets his burden of injecting the issue of self-defense into the case but the trial court does not submit an instruction on the issue to the jury regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction.”). 16 When a jury is not properly instructed, appellate courts are left to c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2015Accordingly, "[w]hen a defendant requests an instruction for a lesser included offense that consists of a subset of the elements of the charged offense, that instruction must be given."7 Id. at 404 .8 "A person commits murder in the second degree if he or she 'knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person.'" State v. Thomas, 161 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Mo. banc 2005) (quoting § 565.021.1(1)). 2015Accordingly, "[w]hen a defendant requests an instruction for a lesser included offense that consists of a subset of the elements of the charged offense, that instruction must be given."7 Id. at 404 .8 "A person commits murder in the second degree if he or she 'knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person.'" State v. Thomas, 161 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Mo. banc 2005) (quoting § 565.021.1(1)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pulleygreen1 sentence2015"In contrast, a defendant commits first-degree involuntary manslaughter if he or she recklessly causes the death of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustified risk, and that acting with such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would have exercised." State v. Pulley, 356 S.W.3d 187, 192 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (citing §§ 565.024.1(1) & 562.016.4). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Bruce Piercegreen1 sentence2015Id. at 392, 404. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pondgreen1 sentence2010A trial court is not required to give an instruction on a lesser included offense unless the defendant requests the instruction and there is a basis for acquittal on the greater offense. § 556.046.2; State v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 656, 658-60 (Mo. banc 2010). ‘“In order for there to be a basis for an acquittal of the greater offense, there must be some evidence that an essential element of the greater offense is lacking and the element that is lacking must be the basis for acquittal of the greater offense and the conviction of the lesser.’ ” State v. Pond, 131 S.W.3d 792, 794 (Mo. banc 2004) (q | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2010A trial court is not required to give an instruction on a lesser included offense unless the defendant requests the instruction and there is a basis for acquittal on the greater offense. § 556.046.2; State v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 656, 658-60 (Mo. banc 2010). ‘“In order for there to be a basis for an acquittal of the greater offense, there must be some evidence that an essential element of the greater offense is lacking and the element that is lacking must be the basis for acquittal of the greater offense and the conviction of the lesser.’ ” State v. Pond, 131 S.W.3d 792, 794 (Mo. banc 2004) (q | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnardgreen1 sentence2010A trial court is not required to give an instruction on a lesser included offense unless the defendant requests the instruction and there is a basis for acquittal on the greater offense. § 556.046.2; State v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 656, 658-60 (Mo. banc 2010). ‘“In order for there to be a basis for an acquittal of the greater offense, there must be some evidence that an essential element of the greater offense is lacking and the element that is lacking must be the basis for acquittal of the greater offense and the conviction of the lesser.’ ” State v. Pond, 131 S.W.3d 792, 794 (Mo. banc 2004) (q | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reynoldsgreen1 sentence2005Likewise, in State v. Reynolds, 72 S.W.3d 301, 305-06 (Mo.App.2002), the court, quoting State v. Morrow, 41 S.W.3d 56, 59 (Mo.App.2001), held that: “Manifest injustice results when a defendant meets his burden of injecting the issue of self-defense into the case but the trial court does not submit an instruction on the issue to the jury regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction.” Logically, this same reasoning would apply to the special negative defense of a claim-of-right defense such that if the issue of whether the appellant had an honest belief that she had a right to he | 1 | 1 |
State v. Redmondgreen1 sentence2002A jury may be instructed on both self-defense and voluntary manslaughter since “[u]nlike self-defense, there is no requirement that the defendant act reasonably to have his intentional killing reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.” State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205, 209 (Mo. banc 1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ivicsicsgreen1 sentence2001Johnson argues that, if supported by the evidence, an instruction on justifiable homicide must be submitted to the jury, whether or not the defendant requests the instruction, citing State v. Ivicsics, 604 S.W.2d 773, 776 (Mo.App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Albanesegreen1 sentence2001See State v. Albanese, 920 S.W.2d 917, 922 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hajekgreen1 sentence1991State v. Hajek, 716 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Finchergreen1 sentence1986State v. Fincher, 655 S.W.2d 54, 58 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Isom, 660 S.W.2d 739, 742 (Mo.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Isomgreen1 sentence1986State v. Fincher, 655 S.W.2d 54, 58 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Isom, 660 S.W.2d 739, 742 (Mo.App.1983). | 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. Seay
green
1 sentence2025"Manifest injustice results when a defendant meets his burden of injecting the issue of self-defense into the case but the trial court does not submit an instruction on the issue to the jury regardless of whether the defendant requests the instruction." Id. at 307-08 7 (quoting State v. Morrow, 41 S.W.3d 56, 59 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State of Missouri v. Andrew Barnett
green
1 sentence2020“Accordingly, the only relevant inquiry when a defendant requests an instruction on a theory of defense is whether, after viewing all the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the theory propounded by the defendant, there was substantial evidence to support the requested instruction.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Bidstrup
green
2 sentences2019Bidstrup, 140 S.W. at 907 . 2019Bidstrup, 140 S.W. at 907 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Cole
green
1 sentence2019Accordingly, the only relevant inquiry when a defendant requests an instruction on a theory of defense is whether, after viewing all the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the theory propounded by the defendant, Cole, 377 S.W.2d at 307 -08 , there was substantial evidence to support the requested instruction. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Kroloff
green
1 sentence1917In the present case, where there were five assign ments of negligence, including the two based on the ordinances, it is impossible to say, the jury having returned a verdict for the plaintiff, on which one or more of the assignments of negligence the jury based its verdict. [Allen v. Lumber Co., 171 Mo. App. l. c. 503, 157 S. W. 661 ; Chicago, etc., Railroad Co. v. Kroloff, 217 Fed. 525 .] However, defendants refused instructions numbered 1 and 2 are not without fault, and, in the form requested, are subject to criticism, in that the concluding words, “you must return a verdict for defendant a | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Allen v. Quercus Lumber Co.
neutral
1 sentence1917In the present case, where there were five assign ments of negligence, including the two based on the ordinances, it is impossible to say, the jury having returned a verdict for the plaintiff, on which one or more of the assignments of negligence the jury based its verdict. [Allen v. Lumber Co., 171 Mo. App. l. c. 503, 157 S. W. 661 ; Chicago, etc., Railroad Co. v. Kroloff, 217 Fed. 525 .] However, defendants refused instructions numbered 1 and 2 are not without fault, and, in the form requested, are subject to criticism, in that the concluding words, “you must return a verdict for defendant a | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.