18 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bernardgreen2 sentences2016See Bernard, 849 S.W.2d at 17 (“[f]or the prior conduct to fall within the identity exception, there must be more than mere similarity between the crime charged and the uncharged crime”); see also Davis, 211 S.W.3d at 87-89 (holding uncharged robbery was not sufficiently similar to be admissible under the identity exception in case involving charged robbery because although the two crimes had multiple similarities, they were different in several respects). 2016See Bernard, 849 S.W.2d at 17 (“[f]or the prior conduct to fall within the identity exception, there must be more than mere similarity between the crime charged and the uncharged crime”); see also Davis, 211 S.W.3d at 87-89 (holding uncharged robbery was not sufficiently similar to be admissible under the identity exception in case involving charged robbery because although the two crimes had multiple similarities, they were different in several respects). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Austingreen2 sentences2016See Austin, 411 S.W.3d at 294 . 2016See Austin, 411 S.W.3d at 294 . g. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2016See Bernard, 849 S.W.2d at 17 (“[f]or the prior conduct to fall within the identity exception, there must be more than mere similarity between the crime charged and the uncharged crime”); see also Davis, 211 S.W.3d at 87-89 (holding uncharged robbery was not sufficiently similar to be admissible under the identity exception in case involving charged robbery because although the two crimes had multiple similarities, they were different in several respects). 2016See Bernard, 849 S.W.2d at 17 (“[f]or the prior conduct to fall within the identity exception, there must be more than mere similarity between the crime charged and the uncharged crime”); see also Davis, 211 S.W.3d at 87-89 (holding uncharged robbery was not sufficiently similar to be admissible under the identity exception in case involving charged robbery because although the two crimes had multiple similarities, they were different in several respects). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McDanielsgreen2 sentences1993State v. McDaniels, 668 S.W.2d 230, 232-33 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Young, 661 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Mo.App.1983). 1993The court further stated that for prior misconduct to be classified within this established exception and admissible, “[t]he charged and uncharged crimes must be nearly ‘identical’ and their methodology ‘so unusual and distinctive’ that they resemble a ‘signature’ of the defendant’s involvement in both crimes.” Id. at 16-17 (quoting State v. McDaniels, 668 S.W.2d 230, 232-33 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Young, 661 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Mo.App.1983)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences1993State v. McDaniels, 668 S.W.2d 230, 232-33 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Young, 661 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Mo.App.1983). 1993The court further stated that for prior misconduct to be classified within this established exception and admissible, “[t]he charged and uncharged crimes must be nearly ‘identical’ and their methodology ‘so unusual and distinctive’ that they resemble a ‘signature’ of the defendant’s involvement in both crimes.” Id. at 16-17 (quoting State v. McDaniels, 668 S.W.2d 230, 232-33 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Young, 661 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Mo.App.1983)). | 2 | 2 |
Calmese v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vowellgreen1 sentence2003Anthony, 881 S.W.2d at 660; State v. Vowell, 863 S.W.2d 954, 957 (Mo.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Maddox v. Truman Medical Center, Inc.green1 sentence2000Maddox v. Truman Medical Center, Inc., 727 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reesegreen1 sentence1995The court not only held the evidence admissible to prove consciousness of guilt but also said, “[A]l-though we need not discuss the point further ... such evidence could also fall within the identity exception to the rule against showing prior offenses.” Id. at 840 ; citing State v. Reese, 274 S.W.2d 304, 307 (Mo. banc 1954). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McKinneygreen1 sentence1987“It has long been held in Missouri that identity of names is prima facie evidence of the identity of person.” State v. McKinney, 718 S.W.2d 583, 586 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen1 sentence1981State v. Thomas, 541 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Mo.App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Collorgreen1 sentence1976This argument has been advanced several times in Missouri cases, but the rule remains that the inclusion of a separate cautionary identity instruction is discretionary, State v. Collor, 502 S.W.2d 258, 259 (Mo.1973); State v. Taylor, 472 S.W.2d 395, 402 (Mo.1971) and State v. Letourneau, 515 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence1976This argument has been advanced several times in Missouri cases, but the rule remains that the inclusion of a separate cautionary identity instruction is discretionary, State v. Collor, 502 S.W.2d 258, 259 (Mo.1973); State v. Taylor, 472 S.W.2d 395, 402 (Mo.1971) and State v. Letourneau, 515 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. App.1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2019Further, records properly deposited with DHSS are admissible in courts and in administrative proceedings if certified by a proper custodian 3 Mr. Carvalho suggests White, 321 S.W.3d at 307 , effectively overruled Turcotte and its progeny. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Vorhees
green
1 sentence2018State v. Vorhees , 248 S.W.3d 585 , 590 (Mo. banc 2008), abrogated in part by article I, section 18(c) of the Missouri Constitution, ("Signature evidence used for corroboration is, at base, propensity evidence masquerading under the well-recognized identity exception, a category of exception in which it does not belong."). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Branam
green
1 sentence2018As explained in State v. McBenge ,"[e]vidence is logically relevant under the identity exception if the identity of the wrongdoer is at issue, and the State demonstrates the defendant is the perpetrator who has committed the charged crime by showing defendant or his accomplice has committed other uncharged acts which are sufficiently similar to the crime charged with respect to time, place, and method." 507 S.W.3d 94 , 116 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cervantes v. Time, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997The point of principal importance is that there *655 must be a showing of cognizable prejudice before the failure to permit examination of anonymous news sources can rise to the level of error.” Id. at 994 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Corlew
green
1 sentence1995The court not only held the evidence admissible to prove consciousness of guilt but also said, “[A]l-though we need not discuss the point further ... such evidence could also fall within the identity exception to the rule against showing prior offenses.” Id. at 840 ; citing State v. Reese, 274 S.W.2d 304, 307 (Mo. banc 1954). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Conley
green
1 sentence1994However, the Court in Bernard went on to recognize a related exception known as the ‘signature modus operandi /corroboration exception.’ That exception, similar to the identity exception, authorized evidence of an uncharged crime if the offenses are nearly identical and their methodology so unusual and distinctive that they amount to a signature of the defendant involved in both crimes.” Conley, 873 S.W.2d at 236 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Koster
green
2 sentences1993Koster, 684 S.W.2d at 491 . 1993Koster, 684 S.W.2d at 491 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Brooks
green
2 sentences1993As the court of appeals noted in State v. Brooks, 810 S.W.2d 627 (Mo.App.1991), the result has been that “the common scheme or plan exception [is] being conflated or mixed with the identity exception; the definitional lines separating these two exceptions [has] become blurred; and the trial court admits evidence of other crimes without a clear rationale for doing so.” Id. at 633 . 1993As the court of appeals noted in State v. Brooks, 810 S.W.2d 627 (Mo.App.1991), the result has been that “the common scheme or plan exception [is] being conflated or mixed with the identity exception; the definitional lines separating these two exceptions [has] become blurred; and the trial court admits evidence of other crimes without a clear rationale for doing so.” Id. at 633 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences1992Jones, 460 So.2d at 1390 . 1992Jones, 460 So.2d at 1390 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Melvin Telfaire
green
2 sentences1976On appeal, he suggests that the trial court should have given an identity instruction based on the model instruction discussed in United States v. Telfaire, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 146 , 469 F.2d 552 (1972). 1976On appeal, he suggests that the trial court should have given an identity instruction based on the model instruction discussed in United States v. Telfaire, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 146 , 469 F.2d 552 (1972). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Letourneau
green
1 sentence1976This argument has been advanced several times in Missouri cases, but the rule remains that the inclusion of a separate cautionary identity instruction is discretionary, State v. Collor, 502 S.W.2d 258, 259 (Mo.1973); State v. Taylor, 472 S.W.2d 395, 402 (Mo.1971) and State v. Letourneau, 515 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. App.1974). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.