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.
12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 4 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. Claygreen2 sentences2024The Court also specifically addressed the defendant’s argument that a defendant “does not waive plain error review by failing to object to a faulty jury instruction or by failing to submit a correct instruction.” Clay, 533 S.W.3d at 715 (quoting State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 , 154 n. 3 (Mo. banc 2011)). 2022Binding authority instead directs that a defendant "does not waive plain error review by failing to object to a faulty jury instruction or by failing to submit a correct instruction." State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 715 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 , 154 n.3 (Mo. banc 2011)). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Wurtzbergergreen2 sentences2023Id. at 110-11 (citing State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 715 (Mo. banc 2017); State v. Wurtzberger, 40 S.W.3d 893, 897-98 (Mo. banc 2001)). 2022In State v. Wurtzberger, 40 S.W.3d 893 , 897-98 11 (Mo. banc 2001), the Supreme Court held that a defendant's failure to object to an instruction extends to include affirmatively or expressly telling the trial court that the defendant has no objection to the instruction. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Celis-Garciagreen2 sentences2024The Court also specifically addressed the defendant’s argument that a defendant “does not waive plain error review by failing to object to a faulty jury instruction or by failing to submit a correct instruction.” Clay, 533 S.W.3d at 715 (quoting State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 , 154 n. 3 (Mo. banc 2011)). 2022Binding authority instead directs that a defendant "does not waive plain error review by failing to object to a faulty jury instruction or by failing to submit a correct instruction." State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 715 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 , 154 n.3 (Mo. banc 2011)). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Boldengreen2 sentences2021In State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 715 (Mo. banc 2017), the Missouri Supreme Court held that, while a defendant does not waive plain error review by failing to object to a faulty jury instruction or failing to submit a correct one, a defendant cannot ‘“take advantage of self-invited error or error of his own making.”’ (citing State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011), 7 and quoting State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 806 (Mo. banc 2012)). 2019In that case, the Court recognized that in Celis- Garcia it “reaffirmed the principle that a defendant ‘does not waive plain error review by failing to object to a faulty jury instruction or by failing to submit a correct instruction[,]’” but went on to distinguish Clay from Celis-Garcia noting that “Mr. Clay actively collaborated in drafting the instruction he now asserts was erroneous, and he ‘may not take advantage of self-invited error of his own making.’” Id. at 715 (quoting Bolden, 371 S.W.3d at 806 ). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Derenzygreen1 sentence2011State v. Derenzy, 89 S.W.3d 472, 475 (Mo. banc 2002) (submission of an incorrect instruction did not waive plain error review); State v. Wurtzberger, 40 S.W.3d 893, 897-98 (Mo. banc 2001) (counsel’s affirmative statement that he had no objection to the instruction and his failure to submit an alternative instruction did not waive plain error review). 4 .The verdict directors changed the January 1, 2006 to May 31, 2006 timeframe listed in the indictment to January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McCuingreen1 sentence1989State v. McCuin, 731 S.W.2d 305, 306 (Mo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pitchfordgreen1 sentence1987State v. Pitchford, 556 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Mo.App.1977). | 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 of Missouri v. Rodger L. Gannan
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 110-11 (citing State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 715 (Mo. banc 2017); State v. Wurtzberger, 40 S.W.3d 893, 897-98 (Mo. banc 2001)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Richards
green
1 sentence2016Richards, 300 S.W.3d at 281 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.