11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Redmondgreen2 sentences2015State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Mo. banc 1996) (defendant “is entitled to a new trial before a properly instructed jury”). 2015State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Mo. banc 1996) (defendant “is entitled to a new trial before a properly instructed jury”). | 3 | 3 |
Hervey v. Missouri Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2020Hervey v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 379 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Mo. banc 2012). “[P]rejudice is presumed when a trial court fails to give a requested lesser included offense instruction that is supported by the evidence.” Jackson, 433 S.W.3d at 395 n.4. 8 “In determining whether a trial court erred in refusing to submit an instruction on a lesser- included offense, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant.” State v. Stidman, 259 S.W.3d 96, 101 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stidmangreen1 sentence2020Hervey v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 379 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Mo. banc 2012). “[P]rejudice is presumed when a trial court fails to give a requested lesser included offense instruction that is supported by the evidence.” Jackson, 433 S.W.3d at 395 n.4. 8 “In determining whether a trial court erred in refusing to submit an instruction on a lesser- included offense, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant.” State v. Stidman, 259 S.W.3d 96, 101 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Deckgreen1 sentence2017"This Court will reverse on a claim of instructional error only if there is an error in submitting an instruction and that error results in prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 548 (Mo. banc 2010). ”[P]reju-dice is presumed when a trial court fails to give a requested lesser included offense instruction that is supported by .the evidence,” State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390 , 395 n.4 (Mo. banc 2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2015"Any evidence that is sufficient to prove the elements of the charged offense must necessarily be sufficient to prove a crime that is comprised of a subset of those same elements, i.e., a 'nested' lesser offense." Id. at 405 . "[A] defendant not only does not need to introduce affirmative evidence, he does not have to 'cast doubt' over the state's evidence via cross-examination or explain to the judge or jury precisely how or why the jury can 4 "[P]rejudice is presumed when a trial court fails to give a requested lesser included offense instruction that is supported by the evidence." Jackson, 2015"Any evidence that is sufficient to prove the elements of the charged offense must necessarily be sufficient to prove a crime that is comprised of a subset of those same elements, i.e., a 'nested' lesser offense." Id. at 405 . "[A] defendant not only does not need to introduce affirmative evidence, he does not have to 'cast doubt' over the state's evidence via cross-examination or explain to the judge or jury precisely how or why the jury can 4 "[P]rejudice is presumed when a trial court fails to give a requested lesser included offense instruction that is supported by the evidence." Jackson, | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Denford Jacksongreen1 sentence2015"Any evidence that is sufficient to prove the elements of the charged offense must necessarily be sufficient to prove a crime that is comprised of a subset of those same elements, i.e., a 'nested' lesser offense." Id. at 405 . "[A] defendant not only does not need to introduce affirmative evidence, he does not have to 'cast doubt' over the state's evidence via cross-examination or explain to the judge or jury precisely how or why the jury can 4 "[P]rejudice is presumed when a trial court fails to give a requested lesser included offense instruction that is supported by the evidence." Jackson, | 1 | 1 |
Wilmer Lane Easter v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2014State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Mo. banc 1996) (defendant "is entitled to a new trial before a properly instructed jury”). .This decision not to raise a constitutional claim at trial may have reflected the "widely held view that failure of a state court to instruct on a lesser offense [in a non-capital case] fails to present a federal constitutional question!.]” Trujillo v. Sullivan, 815 F.2d 597, 607 (10th Cir.1987) (citing Easter v. Estelle, 609 F.2d 756, 758 (5th Cir.1980); James v. Reese, 546 F.2d 325, 327 (9th Cir.1976); DeBerry v. Wolff, 513 F.2d 1336, 1339 (8th Cir.1975)). | 1 | 1 |
Jesse Joseph Trujillo v. George E. Sullivangreen1 sentence2014State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Mo. banc 1996) (defendant "is entitled to a new trial before a properly instructed jury”). .This decision not to raise a constitutional claim at trial may have reflected the "widely held view that failure of a state court to instruct on a lesser offense [in a non-capital case] fails to present a federal constitutional question!.]” Trujillo v. Sullivan, 815 F.2d 597, 607 (10th Cir.1987) (citing Easter v. Estelle, 609 F.2d 756, 758 (5th Cir.1980); James v. Reese, 546 F.2d 325, 327 (9th Cir.1976); DeBerry v. Wolff, 513 F.2d 1336, 1339 (8th Cir.1975)). | 1 | 1 |
Earl Deberry v. Charles Wolff, Jr.green1 sentence2014State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Mo. banc 1996) (defendant "is entitled to a new trial before a properly instructed jury”). .This decision not to raise a constitutional claim at trial may have reflected the "widely held view that failure of a state court to instruct on a lesser offense [in a non-capital case] fails to present a federal constitutional question!.]” Trujillo v. Sullivan, 815 F.2d 597, 607 (10th Cir.1987) (citing Easter v. Estelle, 609 F.2d 756, 758 (5th Cir.1980); James v. Reese, 546 F.2d 325, 327 (9th Cir.1976); DeBerry v. Wolff, 513 F.2d 1336, 1339 (8th Cir.1975)). | 1 | 1 |
Raymond R. James v. Robert M. Reese, Wardengreen1 sentence2014State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Mo. banc 1996) (defendant "is entitled to a new trial before a properly instructed jury”). .This decision not to raise a constitutional claim at trial may have reflected the "widely held view that failure of a state court to instruct on a lesser offense [in a non-capital case] fails to present a federal constitutional question!.]” Trujillo v. Sullivan, 815 F.2d 597, 607 (10th Cir.1987) (citing Easter v. Estelle, 609 F.2d 756, 758 (5th Cir.1980); James v. Reese, 546 F.2d 325, 327 (9th Cir.1976); DeBerry v. Wolff, 513 F.2d 1336, 1339 (8th Cir.1975)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fowlergreen1 sentence2001See sec. 556.046.2, RSMo 1994; State v. Fowler, 938 S.W.2d 894, 898 (Mo. banc 1997) ("the court errs in not giving a requested lesser included offense instruction if there is a basis for both an acquittal of the higher offense and a conviction of the lesser included offense"). 11 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Neighborsgreen1 sentence1987State v. Neighbors, 613 S.W.2d at 148. | 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. Bruce Pierce
green
2 sentences2020Hervey v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 379 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Mo. banc 2012). “[P]rejudice is presumed when a trial court fails to give a requested lesser included offense instruction that is supported by the evidence.” Jackson, 433 S.W.3d at 395 n.4. 8 “In determining whether a trial court erred in refusing to submit an instruction on a lesser- included offense, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant.” State v. Stidman, 259 S.W.3d 96, 101 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008). 2017"This Court will reverse on a claim of instructional error only if there is an error in submitting an instruction and that error results in prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 548 (Mo. banc 2010). ”[P]reju-dice is presumed when a trial court fails to give a requested lesser included offense instruction that is supported by .the evidence,” State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390 , 395 n.4 (Mo. banc 2014). | 5 | 2015–2024 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2017The state cites State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2009), for the proposition that the erroneous failure to give a requested lesser included offense instruction is not prejudicial when the trial court instructs the jury on the greater offense and one lesser included offense and the jury finds the defendant guilty of the greater offense. 2017Nonetheless, the State argues the Court should not reverse Smith’s conviction for Count 1 based on the trial court’s failure to give the requested trespass instruction because the jury was instructed on one lesser included offense, burglary in the second degree, and found Smith guilty of first-degree burglary. 6 The State relies on State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2009), a pre-Jackson case, to support its argument that the failure to give a requested lesser included offense instruction is not prejudicial, reversible error under the present circumstances. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Beeler
green
1 sentence2015"Any evidence that is sufficient to prove the elements of the charged offense must necessarily be sufficient to prove a crime that is comprised of a subset of those same elements, i.e., a 'nested' lesser offense." Id. at 405 . "[A] defendant not only does not need to introduce affirmative evidence, he does not have to 'cast doubt' over the state's evidence via cross-examination or explain to the judge or jury precisely how or why the jury can 4 "[P]rejudice is presumed when a trial court fails to give a requested lesser included offense instruction that is supported by the evidence." Jackson, | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lakeside v. Oregon
green
2 sentences2001Moreover, Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 340 , 98 S.Ct. 1091 , 55 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978), found "dubious” the assumption that "the jurors have not noticed that the defendant did not testify and will not, therefore, draw adverse inferences on their own.” 12 . 2001Moreover, Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 340 , 98 S.Ct. 1091 , 55 L.Ed.2d 319 (1978), found "dubious” the assumption that "the jurors have not noticed that the defendant did not testify and will not, therefore, draw adverse inferences on their own.” 12 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.