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.
13 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Camillo v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Camillo v. State, 757 S.W.2d 234, 241 (Mo.App. 1988This Court indicated that in order to be successful on an ineffectiveness claim based upon the failure to request a mistrial or an instruction to disregard “it must be shown that, had counsel requested the additional relief, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1988See Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 698 . 1988See Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 698 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mullengreen2 sentences1980As authority for the claim of error, appellant cites State v. Mullen, 528 S.W.2d 517, 523-524 [17]-[21] (Mo.App.1975), in which the court concluded that there was no error in refusing to declare a mistrial because of a prejudicial, voluntary statement of a witness, the court noting that the trial court had promptly sustained the objection to the remark. 1980As authority for the claim of error, appellant cites State v. Mullen, 528 S.W.2d 517, 523-524 [17]-[21] (Mo.App.1975), in which the court concluded that there was no error in refusing to declare a mistrial because of a prejudicial, voluntary statement of a witness, the court noting that the trial court had promptly sustained the objection to the remark. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mallorygreen1 sentence1974State v. Mallory, 423 S.W.2d 721, 723 [2] (Mo.1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davitgreen2 sentences1972State v. Lee, Mo.Sup., 404 S.W.2d 740, 748-749 [16-17]; State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151 , 125 S.W.2d 47, 54 [15-17], Judgment affirmed. 1972State v. Lee, Mo.Sup., 404 S.W.2d 740, 748-749 [16-17]; State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151 , 125 S.W.2d 47, 54 [15-17], Judgment affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leegreen1 sentence1972State v. Lee, Mo.Sup., 404 S.W.2d 740, 748-749 [16-17]; State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151 , 125 S.W.2d 47, 54 [15-17], Judgment affirmed. | 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. Moon
green
1 sentence2018Such a mistrial does not bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds, even if the examination is ordered sua sponte, because such a mistrial "would have been made due to a manifest necessity." Id. ; see § 552.020.12 (setting forth a procedure the court may follow when the question of the accused's mental fitness to proceed is raised after a jury is impaneled). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sneed v. Burress
green
2 sentences2018A mistrial is intended to cure prejudice, not to punish counsel or parties. "[I]t is the effect that must meet the mistrial standard, not the audacity of the perpetrator's defiance." Sneed v. Burress, 500 S.W.3d 791 , 805 (Ky. 2016) (Venters, J., dissenting). 2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Perez
green
2 sentences1998As Justice Story wrote in first setting out the “manifest necessity” test in United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 , 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824): We think, that in all eases of this nature, the law has invested Courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. 1998As Justice Story wrote in first setting out the “manifest necessity” test in United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 , 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824): We think, that in all eases of this nature, the law has invested Courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Frentzel
green
1 sentence1998Id. at [6]. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Scarlett
green
1 sentence1981Id. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Camlen
green
1 sentence1981Appellant also relies upon State v. Johnson, 267 S.W.2d 642 (Mo.1954); State v. Nickens, 403 S.W.2d 582 (Mo. banc 1966); and State v. Camlen, 515 S.W.2d 574 (Mo. banc 1974). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1981Appellant also relies upon State v. Johnson, 267 S.W.2d 642 (Mo.1954); State v. Nickens, 403 S.W.2d 582 (Mo. banc 1966); and State v. Camlen, 515 S.W.2d 574 (Mo. banc 1974). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Nickens
green
1 sentence1981Appellant also relies upon State v. Johnson, 267 S.W.2d 642 (Mo.1954); State v. Nickens, 403 S.W.2d 582 (Mo. banc 1966); and State v. Camlen, 515 S.W.2d 574 (Mo. banc 1974). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Turner
green
1 sentence1980State v. Turner, 320 S.W.2d 579 (Mo.1959). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.