11 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of C.L.B. v. Juvenile Officergreen2 sentences2021See B.O., 595 S.W.3d at 511, 512 (citing C.L.B., 22 S.W.3d at 239 ) (holding that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard must be applied for the motion-to-modify procedure to properly provide a forum for the adjudication of guilt of an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult). 2007Whether judged under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard or preponderance of the evidence standard, see C.L.B. v. Juvenile Officer, 22 S.W.3d 233 (Mo.App.W.D.2000), the State provided sufficient evidence to prove that N.K.G. attempted to cause physical injury to another person. | 3 | 5 |
State v. Overkampgreen1 sentence2020Campbell, 600 S.W.3d at 795–96 (citing State v. Overkamp, 646 S.W.2d 733, 738 (Mo. banc 1983)) (additional citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Umar Muhammadgreen2 sentences2020See Muhammad, 478 S.W.3d at 478 (citing State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d 778, 781 (Mo. banc 1983)) (distinguishing appropriate statements regarding the jurors’ use of common sense in determining whether the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is satisfied from inappropriate statements that the jurors only need be convinced of the defendant’s guilt based on their common sense). 2020See Muhammad, 478 S.W.3d at 478 (citing State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d 778, 781 (Mo. banc 1983)) (distinguishing appropriate statements regarding the jurors’ use of common sense in determining whether the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is satisfied from inappropriate statements that the jurors only need be convinced of the defendant’s guilt based on their common sense). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dorseygreen2 sentences2020Thurmond must prove that the State’s alleged misstatements of the beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard “had a decisive impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Dorsey, 318 S.W.3d 648, 655 (Mo. banc 2010) (internal citation omitted). 2020Finally, we also note that Thurmond has not demonstrated on appeal that the State’s discussion of the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard “had a decisive impact on the outcome of the trial.” See Dorsey, 318 S.W.3d at 655 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2020See Muhammad, 478 S.W.3d at 478 (citing State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d 778, 781 (Mo. banc 1983)) (distinguishing appropriate statements regarding the jurors’ use of common sense in determining whether the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is satisfied from inappropriate statements that the jurors only need be convinced of the defendant’s guilt based on their common sense). 2020See Muhammad, 478 S.W.3d at 478 (citing State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d 778, 781 (Mo. banc 1983)) (distinguishing appropriate statements regarding the jurors’ use of common sense in determining whether the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is satisfied from inappropriate statements that the jurors only need be convinced of the defendant’s guilt based on their common sense). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harpergreen2 sentences2020See State v. Harper, 553 S.W.2d 895, 898 (Mo. App. Springfield 1977). 2020Specifically, Harper found no error, plain or otherwise, regarding statements that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard was “not an impossible burden” and was a “very realistic burden[.]” Harper, 553 S.W.2d at 897–98. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grimgreen1 sentence2016A reasonable finder of fact may not rest a conclusion upon “sheer speculation.” State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 414 (Mo. banc 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., Turner v. State, 784 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Detention of Palmer
green
1 sentence2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In the Interest of Fisher
green
1 sentence2000The Missouri Supreme Court followed In Re Winship in In Re Fisher, 468 S.W.2d 198 (Mo.1971). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2000As discussed above, In Re Winship says that a beyond a reasonable doubt standard must be applied “during the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult.” In Re Winship, 397 U.S. at 359 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 . 2000As discussed above, In Re Winship says that a beyond a reasonable doubt standard must be applied “during the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult.” In Re Winship, 397 U.S. at 359 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
TSI v. State of Ga.
green
2 sentences1987The appellant cites T.S.I. v. Georgia, 139 Ga.App. 775 , 229 S.E.2d 553 (1976), in support of his Point I and II. 1987The appellant cites T.S.I. v. Georgia, 139 Ga.App. 775 , 229 S.E.2d 553 (1976), in support of his Point I and II. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Irby
green
1 sentence1987In support of his Point I, the appellant cites State v. Irby, 423 S.W.2d 800 (Mo.1968), but the case speaks to the sufficiency of evidence needed to convict based on a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences1983The Court in Jackson also held 443 U.S. at 316-17 , 99 S.Ct. at 2788 that this doctrine “requires more than simply a trial ritual” of informing the jury of the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. 1983The Court in Jackson also held 443 U.S. at 316-17 , 99 S.Ct. at 2788 that this doctrine “requires more than simply a trial ritual” of informing the jury of the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.