10 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2016 0 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. Fergusongreen2 sentences2009State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 506-07 (Mo. banc 2000). 2006“It is well-settled that counsel’s failure to impeach a witness will not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless this action would have provided the defendant with a viable defense or changed the outcome of the trial.” Coday v. State, 179 S.W.3d 343, 352 (Mo.App.2005); State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 506-07 (Mo. banc 2000). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gilpingreen2 sentences2001W.D.2000) (quoting State v. Gilpin, 954 S.W.2d 570, 576 (Mo.App.1997)). 2000To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness to testify, the appellant must show that the “decision ‘involved something other than reasonable trial strategy; that the witness could have been located through reasonable investigation; that the witness would have testified; and that the witness’ testimony would have provided the defendant with a viable defense.’ ” State v. Gilpin, 954 S.W.2d 570, 576 (Mo.App.1997) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Maddixgreen2 sentences1998State v. Maddix, 935 S.W.2d 666, 672 (Mo.App.1996). 1997For the mov-ant to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call a witness, he must show that the decision “involved something other than reasonable trial strategy; that the witness could have been located through reasonable investigation; that the witness would have testified; and that the witness’ testimony would have provided the defendant with a viable defense.” Maddix, 935 S.W.2d at 672 ; State v. Johnson, 901 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Mo. banc 1995) (citing Leisure v. State, 828 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 923 , 113 S.Ct. 343 , 121 L.Ed.2d, 259 (19 | 1 | 2 |
Coday v. Stategreen1 sentence2006“It is well-settled that counsel’s failure to impeach a witness will not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless this action would have provided the defendant with a viable defense or changed the outcome of the trial.” Coday v. State, 179 S.W.3d 343, 352 (Mo.App.2005); State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 506-07 (Mo. banc 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Perkey v. Stategreen1 sentence2006In the specific context of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness to testify, Ms. Francis must demonstrate “that the ‘decision involved something other than reasonable trial strategy; that the witness could have been located through reasonable investigation; that the witness would have testified; and that the witness’ testimony would have provided the defendant with a viable defense.’ ” Perkey v. State, 68 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Mo.App.2001) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallgreen1 sentence2005See State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 506-07 (Mo. banc 2000); State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 687 (Mo. banc 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Vogel v. Stategreen1 sentence2001“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness to testify, the appellant must show that the ‘decision involved something other than reasonable trial strategy; that the witness could have been located through reasonable investigation; that the witness would have testified; and that the witness’ testimony would have provided the defendant with a viable defense.’ ” Vogel v. State, 31 S.W.3d 130, 146 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Leisure v. Stategreen1 sentence1997For the mov-ant to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call a witness, he must show that the decision “involved something other than reasonable trial strategy; that the witness could have been located through reasonable investigation; that the witness would have testified; and that the witness’ testimony would have provided the defendant with a viable defense.” Maddix, 935 S.W.2d at 672 ; State v. Johnson, 901 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Mo. banc 1995) (citing Leisure v. State, 828 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 923 , 113 S.Ct. 343 , 121 L.Ed.2d, 259 (19 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsongreen1 sentence1996Williamson, 877 S.W.2d at 262. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Black v. State
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1997For the mov-ant to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call a witness, he must show that the decision “involved something other than reasonable trial strategy; that the witness could have been located through reasonable investigation; that the witness would have testified; and that the witness’ testimony would have provided the defendant with a viable defense.” Maddix, 935 S.W.2d at 672 ; State v. Johnson, 901 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Mo. banc 1995) (citing Leisure v. State, 828 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 923 , 113 S.Ct. 343 , 121 L.Ed.2d, 259 (19 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Leisure v. Missouri
green
1 sentence1997For the mov-ant to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call a witness, he must show that the decision “involved something other than reasonable trial strategy; that the witness could have been located through reasonable investigation; that the witness would have testified; and that the witness’ testimony would have provided the defendant with a viable defense.” Maddix, 935 S.W.2d at 672 ; State v. Johnson, 901 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Mo. banc 1995) (citing Leisure v. State, 828 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 923 , 113 S.Ct. 343 , 121 L.Ed.2d, 259 (19 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Mitchell v. Bass
green
1 sentence1997For the mov-ant to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call a witness, he must show that the decision “involved something other than reasonable trial strategy; that the witness could have been located through reasonable investigation; that the witness would have testified; and that the witness’ testimony would have provided the defendant with a viable defense.” Maddix, 935 S.W.2d at 672 ; State v. Johnson, 901 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Mo. banc 1995) (citing Leisure v. State, 828 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 923 , 113 S.Ct. 343 , 121 L.Ed.2d, 259 (19 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.