Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2025 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. Williamsgreen2 sentences1983Id. at 257 [4]. 1983State v. Williams, 606 S.W.2d 254 [4] (Mo.App.1980). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2025Though Boedecker summarily argues in her brief that the evidence of her methamphetamine use "had no probative value and a very prejudicial effect," she fails to address whether trial court error in admitting the evidence (even if assumed, arguendo) requires reversal of her convictions. "[I]t is well settled that 'a defendant seeking reversal has the burden of showing both error and resulting prejudice." Stafford, 589 S.W.3d at 712 (quoting State v. Adams, 350 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011)). 2019However, it is well settled that “a defendant seeking reversal has the burden of showing both error and resulting prejudice.” State v. Adams, 350 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (citing State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 895 (Mo. banc 1993)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Isagreen2 sentences2019However, it is well settled that “a defendant seeking reversal has the burden of showing both error and resulting prejudice.” State v. Adams, 350 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (citing State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 895 (Mo. banc 1993)). 2019No prejudice results unless “the erroneously admitted evidence so influenced the jury that, when considered with and balanced against all of the evidence properly admitted, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted but for the erroneously admitted evidence.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 207 S.W.3d at 42 ); Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 224 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mintongreen2 sentences1992State v. Minton, 782 S.W.2d 134, 136 [1] (Mo.App.1989); State v. Reyes, 740 S.W.2d 257, 263 [4] (Mo.App.1987); State v. Lantigua, 652 S.W.2d 177, 178 [1] (Mo.App.1983); State v. Hankins, 612 S.W.2d 438, 439 [1] (Mo.App.1981). 1990State v. Minton, 782 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Mo.App.1989). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Reyesgreen2 sentences1992State v. Minton, 782 S.W.2d 134, 136 [1] (Mo.App.1989); State v. Reyes, 740 S.W.2d 257, 263 [4] (Mo.App.1987); State v. Lantigua, 652 S.W.2d 177, 178 [1] (Mo.App.1983); State v. Hankins, 612 S.W.2d 438, 439 [1] (Mo.App.1981). 1989State v. Reyes, 740 S.W.2d 257, 263 (Mo.App.1987). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hankinsgreen2 sentences1992State v. Minton, 782 S.W.2d 134, 136 [1] (Mo.App.1989); State v. Reyes, 740 S.W.2d 257, 263 [4] (Mo.App.1987); State v. Lantigua, 652 S.W.2d 177, 178 [1] (Mo.App.1983); State v. Hankins, 612 S.W.2d 438, 439 [1] (Mo.App.1981). 1987State v. Hankins, 612 S.W.2d 438, 439 (Mo.App.1981). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bullingtongreen2 sentences1987State v. Bullington, 680 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Mo.App.1984). 1987State v. Bullington, 680 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Mo.App.1984). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lantiguagreen2 sentences1992State v. Minton, 782 S.W.2d 134, 136 [1] (Mo.App.1989); State v. Reyes, 740 S.W.2d 257, 263 [4] (Mo.App.1987); State v. Lantigua, 652 S.W.2d 177, 178 [1] (Mo.App.1983); State v. Hankins, 612 S.W.2d 438, 439 [1] (Mo.App.1981). 1984State v. Lantigua, 652 S.W.2d 177 (Mo.App.1983). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Vernorgreen2 sentences1986A defendant claiming error in the reception of evidence has the burden of showing both error and prejudice.” State v. Vernor, 522 S.W.2d 312, 315 (Mo.App.1975). 1982“A defendant claiming error in the reception of evidence has the burden of showing both error and prejudice.” State v. Vernor, 522 S.W.2d 312 [l-4] (Mo.App.1975). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wrightgreen1 sentence2023State v. Wright, 551 S.W.3d 608, 616 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018); Tettamble, 720 S.W.2d at 742 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wentlandgreen1 sentence1992State v. Rogers, 820 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Mo.App.1991). | 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. Tettamble
green
1 sentence2023State v. Wright, 551 S.W.3d 608, 616 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018); Tettamble, 720 S.W.2d at 742 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2019No prejudice results unless “the erroneously admitted evidence so influenced the jury that, when considered with and balanced against all of the evidence properly admitted, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted but for the erroneously admitted evidence.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 207 S.W.3d at 42 ); Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 224 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Forrest
green
1 sentence2019No prejudice results unless “the erroneously admitted evidence so influenced the jury that, when considered with and balanced against all of the evidence properly admitted, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted but for the erroneously admitted evidence.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 207 S.W.3d at 42 ); Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 224 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.