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 2000–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Deck v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“Strickland clearly and explicitly holds that an outcome-determinative test cannot be applied in a post-conviction setting.” Deck, 68 S.W.3d at 427 ; Schnelle v. State, 103 S.W.3d 165, 177 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (stating similar). 2022See id. at 427-28 (noting that Strickland rejected an outcome determinative test). | 1 | 6 |
Schnelle v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“Strickland clearly and explicitly holds that an outcome-determinative test cannot be applied in a post-conviction setting.” Deck, 68 S.W.3d at 427 ; Schnelle v. State, 103 S.W.3d 165, 177 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (stating similar). 2004Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Armentroutgreen2 sentences2003Id. 2002More specifically, while, under Missouri law, plain error can serve as the basis for granting a new trial on direct appeal only if the error was outcome determinative, State v. Armentrout, 8 S.W.3d 99, 110 (Mo. banc 1999), Strickland clearly and explicitly holds that an outcome-determinative test cannot be applied in a post-conviction setting. 5 466 U.S. at 693 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Barrinergreen1 sentence2015The outcome determinative factors identified in Barriner persuade us that evidence of Joyner’s status as a registered sex offender “had an effect on the jury’s deliberations to the point that it contributed to the result reached.” Barriner, 34 S.W.3d at 151 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2016“Strickland clearly and explicitly holds that an outcome-determinative test cannot be applied in a post-conviction setting,” Id. at 427 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). 2016“Strickland clearly and explicitly holds that an outcome-determinative test cannot be applied in a post-conviction setting,” Id. at 427 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). | 5 | 2002–2022 |
State v. Roberts
green
2 sentences2000Roberts held that the erroneous admission of defendant’s uncharged misconduct resulted only in “evidence-specific prejudice, not outcome-determinative prejudice” and that defendant’s guilt “is essentially uncon-troverted and overwhelming.” Id. 2000Roberts held that the erroneous admission of defendant's uncharged misconduct resulted only in "evidence-specific prejudice, not outcome-determinative prejudice" and *155 that defendant's guilt "is essentially uncontroverted and overwhelming." Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.