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.
14 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1982–1995 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. Gullettgreen2 sentences1988We have held “that strategic choices made by counsel with knowledge of the law, the facts and plausible options are ‘virtually unchallengeable.’” Id. “[T]he right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel, it is not the right to acquittal.” Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo.banc 1987). 1987The extreme degree of intoxication required under the statute is that the degree must be such that the person is “utterly devoid of consciousness or awareness of what he is doing” or “a total lack of capacity such that the bodily machine completely fails” or “so extreme as to suspend all reason.” See State v. Cole, 662 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Mo.App.1983) quoting State v. Gullett, 606 S.W.2d 796, 805-806 (Mo.App.1980). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Jamesgreen2 sentences1995Evidence of impairment sufficient to authorize the intoxication instruction was found lacking in State v. James, 869 S.W.2d 276, 278 (Mo.App.E.D.1994) (there was evidence that defendant’s wife complained of his drinking shortly before the incident, defendant had been drinking and smelled of alcohol after the incident, and when he was arrested it was found that defendant had defecated on himself); State v. Kehner, 886 S.W.2d 130, 133-34 (Mo.App.E.D.1994) (there was evidence that defendant had consumed beer on the day of the incident and he smelled of and had a container of liquor in his vehicle 1995In each case, the court held that because the defendant “did not raise the issue of intoxication or impairment, submitting [the intoxication instruction] was likely to have confused the jury or misled them to believe [the defendant] admitted to some wrongdoing and was attempting to escape liability based on intoxication.” James, 869 S.W.2d at 278 ; Kehner, 886 S.W.2d at 134 . | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1995Evidence of impairment sufficient to authorize the intoxication instruction was found lacking in State v. James, 869 S.W.2d 276, 278 (Mo.App.E.D.1994) (there was evidence that defendant’s wife complained of his drinking shortly before the incident, defendant had been drinking and smelled of alcohol after the incident, and when he was arrested it was found that defendant had defecated on himself); State v. Kehner, 886 S.W.2d 130, 133-34 (Mo.App.E.D.1994) (there was evidence that defendant had consumed beer on the day of the incident and he smelled of and had a container of liquor in his vehicle 1995In each case, the court held that because the defendant “did not raise the issue of intoxication or impairment, submitting [the intoxication instruction] was likely to have confused the jury or misled them to believe [the defendant] admitted to some wrongdoing and was attempting to escape liability based on intoxication.” James, 869 S.W.2d at 278 ; Kehner, 886 S.W.2d at 134 . | 1 | 1 |
Hanson v. Stategreen1 sentence1995The motion court found that it was a matter for appeal; Defendant had not raised the constitutionality of the instruction at trial or in his motion for new trial; and that if the court were to vacate the conviction based on the giving of that instruction, “the result would be to allow post-conviction proceedings to be used as a substitute for appeal.” Defendant notes that Rule 29.15(a) provides that “[a] person convicted of a felony after trial claiming that the conviction or sentence imposed violate the constitution and laws of this state or the constitution of the United States ... may seek | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shieldsgreen1 sentence1995Evidence of impairment sufficient to authorize the intoxication instruction was found lacking in State v. James, 869 S.W.2d 276, 278 (Mo.App.E.D.1994) (there was evidence that defendant’s wife complained of his drinking shortly before the incident, defendant had been drinking and smelled of alcohol after the incident, and when he was arrested it was found that defendant had defecated on himself); State v. Kehner, 886 S.W.2d 130, 133-34 (Mo.App.E.D.1994) (there was evidence that defendant had consumed beer on the day of the incident and he smelled of and had a container of liquor in his vehicle | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huttongreen1 sentence1994See State v. Dillon, 869 S.W.2d 67, 69 [1] (Mo.App.W.D.1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stallingsgreen1 sentence1993Rule 28.03; see State v. Stallings, 812 S.W.2d 772, 778 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Sollars, 706 S.W.2d 485, 495 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Calvingreen1 sentence1993Rule 28.03; see State v. Stallings, 812 S.W.2d 772, 778 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Sollars, 706 S.W.2d 485, 495 (Mo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Hogshooter v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Hogshooter v. State, 681 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Mo.App.1984). ' The claim based on failure to offer expert testimony to support an intoxication defense was correctly rejected by the motion court because that defense was the subject of movant’s direct appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence1988We have held “that strategic choices made by counsel with knowledge of the law, the facts and plausible options are ‘virtually unchallengeable.’” Id. “[T]he right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel, it is not the right to acquittal.” Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo.banc 1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colegreen1 sentence1987The extreme degree of intoxication required under the statute is that the degree must be such that the person is “utterly devoid of consciousness or awareness of what he is doing” or “a total lack of capacity such that the bodily machine completely fails” or “so extreme as to suspend all reason.” See State v. Cole, 662 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Mo.App.1983) quoting State v. Gullett, 606 S.W.2d 796, 805-806 (Mo.App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bienkowskigreen1 sentence1987Second, evidence of mere drug or alcohol intoxication does not raise an intoxication defense; there must be an “extreme degree of intoxication.” State v. Bienkowski, 624 S.W.2d 107, 108 (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McCluregreen1 sentence1986As stated in State v. McClure, 632 S.W.2d 314, 317 (Mo.App.1982): The state contends that there was no prejudice to defendant as the intoxication defense instruction cross-referenced the verdict director. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1982While it is concluded in this case that the evidence was relevant, it has been held that “evidence that is merely irrelevant or immaterial but is not prejudicial or inflammatory does not constitute reversible error.” State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 493, 512 (Mo.App.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 934 , 97 S.Ct. 1558 , 51 L.Ed.2d 779 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Helmgreen1 sentence1982State v. Helm, 624 S.W.2d 513, 517 [13] (Mo.App.1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. Erwin
green
1 sentence1995In his third point relied on, Defendant complains that the intoxication instruction violated his right to due process, citing State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Baber v. Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline
green
1 sentence1995In his third point relied on, Defendant complains that the intoxication instruction violated his right to due process, citing State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Erwin
green
2 sentences1995In his third point relied on, Defendant complains that the intoxication instruction violated his right to due process, citing State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993). 1995As indicated earlier in this opinion, State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d at 484 , limited application of its holding that the instruction given in the instant case was violative of due process to those previously tried cases which were then subject to direct appeal and in which the due process issue had been preserved. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Smoot
green
2 sentences1994In his motion for new trial, defendant claimed the intoxication instruction “violated defendant’s constitutional guarantees under the fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution.” Smoot, 860 S.W.2d at 801 . 1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Page v. Green
green
1 sentence1989Missouri has never dealt directly with the burden of proof with respect to the intoxication defense, but implicitly has treated it as an affirmative defense to be proved by the employer, see Page v. Green, 686 S.W.2d 528 (Mo.App.1985). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Phillips v. Air Reduction Sales Co.
green
1 sentence1985Appellants’ second point assails the rule in Phillips, 85 S.W.2d 551 , and its progeny, supra, that an employee’s intoxication is no defense to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits unless it is so severe that it is impossible for him to physically and mentally engage in his employment. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Madison
green
1 sentence1985In State v. Madison, 684 S.W.2d 532 (Mo.App.E.D.1984), this court found the defendant’s confessions indicated he was aware of his actions on the night the crime occurred, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the intoxication defense instruction. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Smith v. Texas
green
1 sentence1982While it is concluded in this case that the evidence was relevant, it has been held that “evidence that is merely irrelevant or immaterial but is not prejudicial or inflammatory does not constitute reversible error.” State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 493, 512 (Mo.App.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 934 , 97 S.Ct. 1558 , 51 L.Ed.2d 779 (1977). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Roots v. Wainwright
green
1 sentence1982While it is concluded in this case that the evidence was relevant, it has been held that “evidence that is merely irrelevant or immaterial but is not prejudicial or inflammatory does not constitute reversible error.” State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 493, 512 (Mo.App.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 934 , 97 S.Ct. 1558 , 51 L.Ed.2d 779 (1977). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Zannis v. United States
green
1 sentence1982While it is concluded in this case that the evidence was relevant, it has been held that “evidence that is merely irrelevant or immaterial but is not prejudicial or inflammatory does not constitute reversible error.” State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 493, 512 (Mo.App.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 934 , 97 S.Ct. 1558 , 51 L.Ed.2d 779 (1977). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.