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.
9 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gheengreen2 sentences2015Unless he withdraws from the exchange, “[a]n aggressor cannot claim self-defense and does not have the benefit of a self-defense jury instruction.” State v. Gheen, 41 S.W.3d 598, 606 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). 6 Defendant asserts that “[tjhere can be no dispute that [Defendant] and [Victim] both caused physical injury to one another” and that this, coupled with Victim’s testimony that she hit Defendant “in the course of defending herself,” was enough to require a self-defense instruction. 2001Id. | 1 | 2 |
Huff v. J & M HOUSE BUILDERS, INC.green1 sentence2024See Rule 28.02(b)–(d); see also Brown, 577 S.W.3d at 877 (quoting Eckelkamp, 298 S.W.3d at 552 ) (noting “[i]t is settled in this state that ‘the jury is to obtain the law only from approved jury instructions’”). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Dustin Demont Browngreen1 sentence2024See Rule 28.02(b)–(d); see also Brown, 577 S.W.3d at 877 (quoting Eckelkamp, 298 S.W.3d at 552 ) (noting “[i]t is settled in this state that ‘the jury is to obtain the law only from approved jury instructions’”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colemangreen1 sentence2023See Burns, 292 S.W.3d at 506 (citing State v. Coleman, 263 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008)) (“Credibility of witnesses and the effects of conflicts or inconsistencies in testimony are questions for the jury to decide.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burnsgreen1 sentence2023See Burns, 292 S.W.3d at 506 (citing State v. Coleman, 263 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008)) (“Credibility of witnesses and the effects of conflicts or inconsistencies in testimony are questions for the jury to decide.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Averygreen1 sentence2016See Avery, 120 S.W.3d at 200 . | 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 v. Bolden
green
2 sentences2020In State v. Bolden, this Court declined to conduct plain error review and impose a sua sponte duty to modify a self-defense jury instruction when the defendant invited the error by agreeing to the instruction. 371 S.W.3d at 805-06 . 2020In State v. Bolden, this Court declined to conduct plain error review and impose a sua sponte duty to modify a self-defense jury instruction when the defendant invited the error by agreeing to the instruction. 371 S.W.3d at 805-06 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Kendrick
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 123-24 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Davidson
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 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.