91 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2025 3 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. Ervingreen2 sentences2010Standard of Review “Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law ..., the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d 149, 158 (Mo. banc 1998). 2010Standard of Review “Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law ..., the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d 149, 158 (Mo. banc 1998). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Isagreen2 sentences2003State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 902 (Mo.banc 1993). 2003State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 902 (Mo.banc 1993). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Ervingreen2 sentences2005“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1992). 2005“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1992). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2025See Henderson, 551 S.W.3d at 600 ; State v. Brown, 669 S.W.3d 733 , 736 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023) (mandating the exclusive use of any applicable MAI-CR instruction); State v. Bellamy, 680 S.W.3d 596 , 606 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023). 2023“Rule 28.02(c) mandates the exclusive use of a MAI-CR instruction whenever there is one applicable under the law and Notes on Use.” State v. Marley, 598 S.W.3d 204 , 213 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (quoting State v. Henderson, 551 S.W.3d 593, 600 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Coopergreen2 sentences2020“The failure to give an instruction in accordance with MAI-CR or any applicable Notes on Use is error, the prejudicial effect of which must be judicially determined.” Id. (citing Rule 28.02(f); State v. Cooper, 215 S.W.3d 123, 125 (Mo. banc 2007)). 2020“The failure to give an instruction in accordance with MAI-CR or any applicable Notes on Use is error, the prejudicial effect of which must be judicially determined.” Id. (citing Rule 28.02(f); State v. Cooper, 215 S.W.3d 123, 125 (Mo. banc 2007)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2013“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law, the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo. banc 2010). 2013“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law, the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo. banc 2010). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Stevensongreen2 sentences1986In support of segment "(b)" of its argument, the State cites State v. Bruce, 671 S.W.2d 821, 822 [1] *285 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Stevenson, 660 S.W.2d 236, 237 [1] (Mo.App.1983); and State v. Grady, 577 S.W.2d 930, 931 [1] (Mo.App.1979). 1986In support of segment "(b)" of its argument, the State cites State v. Bruce, 671 S.W.2d 821, 822 [1] *285 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Stevenson, 660 S.W.2d 236, 237 [1] (Mo.App.1983); and State v. Grady, 577 S.W.2d 930, 931 [1] (Mo.App.1979). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2019Co. , 413 S.W.3d 649 , 653 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ; see also State v. Wells , 586 S.W.2d 354 , 358 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979) (granting plain-error review of a trial court's refusal to give a pattern MAI-CR instruction). 2019Co., 413 S.W.3d 649 , 653 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013); see also State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 358 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979) (granting plain- error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a pattern MAI-CR instruction). [llustratively, we have exercised our discretion to provide plain-error review where the appellant has merely failed to set forth the refused instruction duplicatively in both the appendix and in the argument portion of the brief. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Deckgreen2 sentences2017“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law ..., the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 545 (Mo. banc 2010) (internal quotations omitted). 2017“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law ..., the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 545 (Mo. banc 2010) (internal quotations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Carsongreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. banc 1997) (“A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.”); State v. Tripp, 939 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App.1997) (“Failure to give an MAI-CR instruction where appropriate is error and failure to follow an accompanying Note on Use is error.... 2010See, e.g., State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. banc 1997) (“A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.”); State v. Tripp, 939 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App.1997) (“Failure to give an MAI-CR instruction where appropriate is error and failure to follow an accompanying Note on Use is error.... | 2 | 2 |
State v. Moriartygreen2 sentences1999The law provides that “[w]hen an MAI-CR instruction is applicable ... the instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. McCann, 952 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Moriarty, 914 S.W.2d 416, 421 (Mo.App.1996). 1999The law provides that “[w]hen an MAI-CR instruction is applicable ... the instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. McCann, 952 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Moriarty, 914 S.W.2d 416, 421 (Mo.App.1996). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Brucegreen2 sentences1986In support of segment "(b)" of its argument, the State cites State v. Bruce, 671 S.W.2d 821, 822 [1] *285 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Stevenson, 660 S.W.2d 236, 237 [1] (Mo.App.1983); and State v. Grady, 577 S.W.2d 930, 931 [1] (Mo.App.1979). 1986In support of segment "(b)" of its argument, the State cites State v. Bruce, 671 S.W.2d 821, 822 [1] *285 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Stevenson, 660 S.W.2d 236, 237 [1] (Mo.App.1983); and State v. Grady, 577 S.W.2d 930, 931 [1] (Mo.App.1979). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gradygreen2 sentences1986In support of segment "(b)" of its argument, the State cites State v. Bruce, 671 S.W.2d 821, 822 [1] *285 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Stevenson, 660 S.W.2d 236, 237 [1] (Mo.App.1983); and State v. Grady, 577 S.W.2d 930, 931 [1] (Mo.App.1979). 1986In support of segment "(b)" of its argument, the State cites State v. Bruce, 671 S.W.2d 821, 822 [1] *285 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Stevenson, 660 S.W.2d 236, 237 [1] (Mo.App.1983); and State v. Grady, 577 S.W.2d 930, 931 [1] (Mo.App.1979). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cliftongreen2 sentences1984While it is true, as defendants argue here, that failure to read MAI-CR2d 1.02 in its entirety to the jury panel prior to selection of the jury was presumptively prejudicial [State v. Clifton, 549 S.W.2d 891, 894 (Mo.App.1977) ], not every omission from a MAI-CR instruction is prejudi-cially erroneous, as prejudicial effect must be judicially determined from all of the facts and circumstances, and in determining that effect, all instructions are to be construed together. 1984While it is true, as defendants argue here, that failure to read MAI-CR2d 1.02 in its entirety to the jury panel prior to selection of the jury was presumptively prejudicial [State v. Clifton, 549 S.W.2d 891, 894 (Mo.App.1977) ], not every omission from a MAI-CR instruction is prejudi-cially erroneous, as prejudicial effect must be judicially determined from all of the facts and circumstances, and in determining that effect, all instructions are to be construed together. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gravesgreen2 sentences1980Rule 28.02(c), formerly Rule 20.02(c), provides that “Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction * * * applicable under the law to the facts, the MAI-CR instruction * * * shall be given * * * to the exclusion of any other on the same subject.” MAI-CR 15.14 was applicable under the law and facts of this case, and present Rule 28.02(e) provides that “Giving * * * an instruction * * * in violation of this Rule * * * shall constitute error, its prejudicial effect to be judicially determined.” In State v. Graves, 588 S.W.2d 495, 497 (Mo. banc 1979), the court held that “This rule has been wisely const 1980Rule 28.02(c), formerly Rule 20.02(c), provides that “Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction * * * applicable under the law to the facts, the MAI-CR instruction * * * shall be given * * * to the exclusion of any other on the same subject.” MAI-CR 15.14 was applicable under the law and facts of this case, and present Rule 28.02(e) provides that “Giving * * * an instruction * * * in violation of this Rule * * * shall constitute error, its prejudicial effect to be judicially determined.” In State v. Graves, 588 S.W.2d 495, 497 (Mo. banc 1979), the court held that “This rule has been wisely const | 2 | 2 |
State v. Abramgreen2 sentences1984(For that proposition he cites State v. Abram, 537 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. banc 1976), to which we shall return later.) In order that the jury would be informed what the “intoxicating liquor” meant, the court took judicial notice of Section 311.020 3 and the same was read to the jury as evidence. 1982State v. Abram, 537 S.W.2d 408, 411 [3] (Mo. banc 1976), explains that to allow definitions to be given when MAI-CR does not call for such definitions would be to create a myriad of instructions on definitions of terms, and that this in turn would defeat the purpose of pattern instructions. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Quinngreen2 sentences1984The state counters that given identification instruction MAI-CR 2.01 spells out what jurors are to consider in determining the believability of witnesses; Note 2 thereof provides “no other additional instruction may be given on the believability of witnesses.... ” Denial of this defendant’s additional identification instruction was approved in State v. Quinn, 594 S.W.2d 599 [11-12] (Mo. banc 1980). 1984See State v. Quinn, 594 S.W.2d 599, 605 (Mo. banc 1980). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Claygreen2 sentences2020Omit brackets and letter.] [a] were related by blood or marriage, [b] (resided together) (and) (had resided together in the past), [c] (were) (and) (had been) in a continuing social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature, [d] have a child in common[.] In this case, the State chose to instruct under option [c], but included “or” instead of “and” between “were” and “had been.” “Rule 28.02(c) mandates the exclusive use of an MAI-CR instruction whenever there is one applicable under the law and Notes on Use.” State v. Henderson, 551 S.W.3d 593, 600 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citing State v. Clay 2020Omit brackets and letter.] [a] were related by blood or marriage, [b] (resided together) (and) (had resided together in the past), [c] (were) (and) (had been) in a continuing social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature, [d] have a child in common[.] In this case, the State chose to instruct under option [c], but included “or” instead of “and” between “were” and “had been.” “Rule 28.02(c) mandates the exclusive use of an MAI-CR instruction whenever there is one applicable under the law and Notes on Use.” State v. Henderson, 551 S.W.3d 593, 600 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citing State v. Clay | 1 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2012“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction or verdict form applicable under the law and Notes On Use, the MAI-CR instruction or verdict form shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.” Rule 28.02(c). 8 “When an applicable MAI-CR instruction is available, that instruction must be given by the trial court as written, and its use will not constitute error.” State v. Davis, 203 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Mo.App. 2012“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction or verdict form applicable under the law and Notes On Use, the MAI-CR instruction or verdict form shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.” Rule 28.02(c). 8 “When an applicable MAI-CR instruction is available, that instruction must be given by the trial court as written, and its use will not constitute error.” State v. Davis, 203 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Trippgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. banc 1997) (“A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.”); State v. Tripp, 939 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App.1997) (“Failure to give an MAI-CR instruction where appropriate is error and failure to follow an accompanying Note on Use is error.... 2010See, e.g., State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. banc 1997) (“A faulty instruction is grounds for reversal if the defendant has been prejudiced.”); State v. Tripp, 939 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App.1997) (“Failure to give an MAI-CR instruction where appropriate is error and failure to follow an accompanying Note on Use is error.... | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dodsongreen2 sentences1979Rule 20.02(e), State v. Dodson, 556 S.W.2d 938, 951 (Mo.App.1977). 1979Indeed, in light of Rule 20.02(c) and (e), we should be most surprised to find such a ruling. 1 Conversely, research disclosed numerous cases where either 1) Adherence to the approved instructions did not constitute error; State v. Dodson, 556 S.W.2d 938 [34] (Mo.App.1977); State v. Blockton, 526 S.W.2d 9X5[9] (Mo.App.1975); State v. Yeokum, 516 S.W.2d 535 [3] (Mo.App.1974); or, 2) Failure to so adhere did constitute error, but its prejudicial effect was to be judicially determined. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Woodworthgreen2 sentences2022The statute was amended, effective January 1, 2017, but the changes were not substantively significant as to the applicable provisions.4 "When an applicable MAI-CR instruction is available, that instruction must be given by the trial court as written, and its use will not constitute error." State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679, 699 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). 2022The statute was amended, effective January 1, 2017, but the changes were not substantively significant as to the applicable provisions.4 "When an applicable MAI-CR instruction is available, that instruction must be given by the trial court as written, and its use will not constitute error." State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679, 699 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weissgreen2 sentences2020Use of force in defense of another is included in the MAI–CR3d 306.00 series titled “INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED WHETHER REQUESTED OR NOT.” The notes on use accompanying the instruction mandate, without qualification, “Whenever there is evidence supporting this defense, this instruction must be given.” MAI-CR3d 306.08A, n.2.3 “Failure to give an MAI-CR instruction in accordance with an accompanying note on use is error.” State v. White, 58 S.W.3d 627, 633 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001); Rule 28.02(f).4 A holding from this Court abrogating the trial court’s obligation to instruct on use of force in defense of 2020Use of force in defense of another is included in the MAI–CR3d 306.00 series titled “INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED WHETHER REQUESTED OR NOT.” The notes on use accompanying the instruction mandate, without qualification, “Whenever there is evidence supporting this defense, this instruction must be given.” MAI-CR3d 306.08A, n.2.3 “Failure to give an MAI-CR instruction in accordance with an accompanying note on use is error.” State v. White, 58 S.W.3d 627, 633 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001); Rule 28.02(f).4 A holding from this Court abrogating the trial court’s obligation to instruct on use of force in defense of | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Withrowgreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fleisgreen2 sentences2019Section 564.011.1. 2 Accordingly, to convict Defendant of attempted enticement, the state needed to prove only: “(1) the defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Mo. banc 1999)); see also Rice, 504 S.W.3d at 202 ; State v. Fleis, 319 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); State v. Wadsworth, 203 S.W.3d 825, 832-33 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). 2 Attempt currently is codified in section 562.01 2019Section 564.011.1. 2 Accordingly, to convict Defendant of attempted enticement, the state needed to prove only: “(1) the defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Mo. banc 1999)); see also Rice, 504 S.W.3d at 202 ; State v. Fleis, 319 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); State v. Wadsworth, 203 S.W.3d 825, 832-33 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). 2 Attempt currently is codified in section 562.01 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wadsworthgreen2 sentences2019Section 564.011.1. 2 Accordingly, to convict Defendant of attempted enticement, the state needed to prove only: “(1) the defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Mo. banc 1999)); see also Rice, 504 S.W.3d at 202 ; State v. Fleis, 319 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); State v. Wadsworth, 203 S.W.3d 825, 832-33 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). 2 Attempt currently is codified in section 562.01 2019Section 564.011.1. 2 Accordingly, to convict Defendant of attempted enticement, the state needed to prove only: “(1) the defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Mo. banc 1999)); see also Rice, 504 S.W.3d at 202 ; State v. Fleis, 319 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); State v. Wadsworth, 203 S.W.3d 825, 832-33 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). 2 Attempt currently is codified in section 562.01 | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Jerry Lee Ricegreen2 sentences2019Section 564.011.1. 2 Accordingly, to convict Defendant of attempted enticement, the state needed to prove only: “(1) the defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Mo. banc 1999)); see also Rice, 504 S.W.3d at 202 ; State v. Fleis, 319 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); State v. Wadsworth, 203 S.W.3d 825, 832-33 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). 2 Attempt currently is codified in section 562.01 2019Section 564.011.1. 2 Accordingly, to convict Defendant of attempted enticement, the state needed to prove only: “(1) the defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Mo. banc 1999)); see also Rice, 504 S.W.3d at 202 ; State v. Fleis, 319 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); State v. Wadsworth, 203 S.W.3d 825, 832-33 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). 2 Attempt currently is codified in section 562.01 | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Phillip Lamont Ransburggreen2 sentences2019Section 564.011.1. 2 Accordingly, to convict Defendant of attempted enticement, the state needed to prove only: “(1) the defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Mo. banc 1999)); see also Rice, 504 S.W.3d at 202 ; State v. Fleis, 319 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); State v. Wadsworth, 203 S.W.3d 825, 832-33 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). 2 Attempt currently is codified in section 562.01 2019Section 564.011.1. 2 Accordingly, to convict Defendant of attempted enticement, the state needed to prove only: “(1) the defendant has the purpose to commit the underlying offense, and (2) the doing of an act which is a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” State v. Ransburg, 504 S.W.3d 721, 723 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Mo. banc 1999)); see also Rice, 504 S.W.3d at 202 ; State v. Fleis, 319 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); State v. Wadsworth, 203 S.W.3d 825, 832-33 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). 2 Attempt currently is codified in section 562.01 | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Drisdelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Edwardsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Altaffergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Younggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Spells v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Coday v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Storeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Greergreen | 1 | 1 |
| DALLER v. Pagegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Campbellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burbridge v. Union Pacific Railroad
green
2 sentences2019Co. , 413 S.W.3d 649 , 653 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ; see also State v. Wells , 586 S.W.2d 354 , 358 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979) (granting plain-error review of a trial court's refusal to give a pattern MAI-CR instruction). 2019Co., 413 S.W.3d 649 , 653 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013); see also State v. Wells, 586 S.W.2d 354, 358 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979) (granting plain- error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a pattern MAI-CR instruction). [llustratively, we have exercised our discretion to provide plain-error review where the appellant has merely failed to set forth the refused instruction duplicatively in both the appendix and in the argument portion of the brief. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Forrest
green
2 sentences2017"MAI instructions are presumptively valid and, when applicable, must be given to the exclusion of other instructions." State v. Forrest , 183 S.W.3d 218 , 229 (Mo. banc 2006) ; see also Rule 28.02(c) ("Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction ... applicable under the law and Notes On Use, the MAI-CR instruction ... shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction ...." (emphasis added)). 2017"MAI instructions are presumptively valid and, when applicable, must be given to the exclusion of other instructions." State v. Forrest , 183 S.W.3d 218 , 229 (Mo. banc 2006) ; see also Rule 28.02(c) ("Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction ... applicable under the law and Notes On Use, the MAI-CR instruction ... shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction ...." (emphasis added)). | 2 | 2017–2019 |
State v. Beck
green
2 sentences2006The appellate court first recognized Rule 28.02(c)’s mandate that “ ‘[wjhenever there is an MAI-CR instruction or verdict form applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI-CR instruction or verdict form shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.’ ” Id. at 779 (quoting Rule 28.02(c)). 2006The appellate court first recognized Rule 28.02(c)’s mandate that “ ‘[wjhenever there is an MAI-CR instruction or verdict form applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI-CR instruction or verdict form shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.’ ” Id. at 779 (quoting Rule 28.02(c)). | 2 | 2006–2013 |
| State v. Scott green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Zink green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Cox green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Briscoe green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. White green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Omawalli v. Anderson green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Libberton v. Arizona green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Moore v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. El Dorado Management Corp. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Schwartz v. Emhart Glass Machinery green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Ervin v. Missouri green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Escobar-Orejuela v. United States green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Parks neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Frey v. Fulcomer green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Laaman v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Pita v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Bragg green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.