64 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2025 6 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. Ervingreen2 sentences2024The Notes on Use similarly do not require the pattern instruction to be modified to include a jury finding that the weapon in question is not an “antique firearm.” 6 In fact, the Notes on Use contain no mention of “antique firearm.” “Whenever there is an MAI–CR instruction applicable under the law …, the MAI–CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 545 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting State v. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d 149, 158 (Mo. banc 1998)) (alteration in original). 2010Standard of Review “Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law ..., the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d 149, 158 (Mo. banc 1998). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Ervingreen2 sentences2005“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1992). 2005As a general rule, “[w]henever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1992). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Isagreen2 sentences1997Rule 28.02(c); State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 902 (Mo. banc 1993). 1995Rule 28.02(c); State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 902 (Mo. banc 1993). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Deckgreen2 sentences2024The Notes on Use similarly do not require the pattern instruction to be modified to include a jury finding that the weapon in question is not an “antique firearm.” 6 In fact, the Notes on Use contain no mention of “antique firearm.” “Whenever there is an MAI–CR instruction applicable under the law …, the MAI–CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 545 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting State v. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d 149, 158 (Mo. banc 1998)) (alteration in original). 2017“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law ..., the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Deck, 303 S.W.3d 527, 545 (Mo. banc 2010) (internal quotations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2013“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law, the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo. banc 2010). 2011“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction applicable under the law, the MAI-CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo. banc 2010). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences1993State v. Middleton, 854 S.W.2d 504, 517 (Mo.App.1993) (citing State v. Rogers, 825 S.W.2d 49, 54 (Mo.App.1992)). 1993State v. Rogers, 825 S.W.2d 49, 54 (Mo.App.1992). | 3 | 3 |
Deckard v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See also Deckard v. State, 110 S.W.3d 891 , 895–96 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (“[W]hen an MAI–CR instruction is applicable under the law and Notes on Use, that instruction must be given as written, to the exclusion of any other proffered instruction.”); State v. Plunkett, 473 S.W.3d 166, 172 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (“Whenever there is an MAI–CR instruction applicable under the law . . . , the MAI–CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.”). 2005Rule 28.02(c); State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1992); Deckard v. State, 110 S.W.3d 891, 895-96 (Mo.App.2003). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Moriartygreen2 sentences1999The law provides that “[w]hen an MAI-CR instruction is applicable ... the instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. McCann, 952 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Moriarty, 914 S.W.2d 416, 421 (Mo.App.1996). 1997“When an MAI-CR instruction is applicable ... the instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.” State v. Moriarty, 914 S.W.2d 416, 421 (Mo. App.1996). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Middletongreen2 sentences1993State v. Middleton, 854 S.W.2d 504, 517 (Mo.App.1993), Rule 28.-02(c). 1993State v. Middleton, 854 S.W.2d 504, 517 (Mo.App.1993) (citing State v. Rogers, 825 S.W.2d 49, 54 (Mo.App.1992)). | 2 | 2 |
Lewis v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Whenever MAI contains an instruction applicable to a particular case, that instruction must be given to the exclusion of any other instruction on the same subject.” Lewis v. State, 152 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Mo.App.2004); see Rule 70..02(b). 7 “With respect to SVP cases, however, there are no applicable MAI instructions.” Scates, 134 S.W.3d at *251 742. 2009“Whenever MAI contains an instruction applicable to a particular case, that instruction must be given to the exclusion of any other instruction on the same subject.” Id. (citing Rule 70.02(b)). | 1 | 3 |
State of Missouri v. Joseph A. Baxgreen2 sentences2025Preservation and Standard of Review Rule 28.02(f) states that failing to give an instruction in violation of Rule 28.02 “shall constitute error, the error’s prejudicial effect to be judicially determined . . . .” Rule 28.02(c) requires courts to give only the appropriate instructions “to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.” State v. Bax, 459 S.W.3d 493, 496 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). 2022“Rule 28.02(c) requires the trial court to give the appropriate approved instructions or verdict form to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Swartzgreen1 sentence2024If no MAI–CR form applies, however, “the modified form ‘shall be simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument.’” Durham, 299 S.W.3d at 321 (quoting Rule 28.02(d)); State v. Swartz, 517 S.W.3d 40, 58 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Sandra G. Plunkettgreen1 sentence2024See also Deckard v. State, 110 S.W.3d 891 , 895–96 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (“[W]hen an MAI–CR instruction is applicable under the law and Notes on Use, that instruction must be given as written, to the exclusion of any other proffered instruction.”); State v. Plunkett, 473 S.W.3d 166, 172 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (“Whenever there is an MAI–CR instruction applicable under the law . . . , the MAI–CR instruction is to be given to the exclusion of any other instruction.”). | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. MISSOURI & NORTHERN ARKANSAS RR CO., INC.green1 sentence2022R.R., 157 S.W.3d 665, 671 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004)); see also Rule 70.02(b)14 (“Whenever Missouri Approved Instructions contains an instruction applicable in a particular case that the appropriate party requests or the court decides to submit, such instruction shall be given to the exclusion of any other instruction on the same subject.”). | 1 | 1 |
Howes v. Howesgreen1 sentence2021SKMDV Holdings, Inc. v. Green Jacobson, P.C., 494 S.W.3d 537, 553, 555 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
City of Harrisonville, Appellant-Respondent v. McCall Service Stations d/b/a Big Tank Oil, the Missouri Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fundgreen1 sentence2017“Any deviation from an approved MAI instruction is presumed prejudicial error unless the contrary is shown.” City of Harrisonville, 495 S.W.3d at 746 (internal quotes and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Kenney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2016“Any deviation from an approved MAI instruction is presumed prejudicial error unless the contrary is shown.” Kenney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 100 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Mo. banc 2003). 2016“Any deviation from an approved MAI instruction is presumed prejudicial error unless the contrary is shown.” Kenney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc,, 100 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Mo.banc 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Syn, Inc. v. Beebegreen1 sentence2014“The law is well-settled that where an MAI instruction applies to the case, the use of such instruction is mandatory.” Syn, Inc., 200 S.W.3d at 128 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Altaffergreen1 sentence2014State v. Altaffer, 23 S.W.3d 891, 895 (Mo.App.S.D.2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Younggreen1 sentence2013“Giving an instruction that violates the Notes on Use under the MAI-CR constitutes error, and its prejudicial effect is to be judicially determined.” State v. Young, 369 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Spells v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“Appellate counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise a frivolous claim.” Spells v. State, 277 S.W.3d 343, 351 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Hoffmangreen1 sentence2012Mathes, 200 S.W.3d at 105 . “[Wjhere there is deviation from an applicable MAI instruction which does not need modification under the facts in the particular case, prejudicial error will be presumed unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from such deviation.” Abbott v. Missouri, Gas Energy, 375 S.W.3d 104, 109 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2012“Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction or verdict form applicable under the law and Notes On Use, the MAI-CR instruction or verdict form shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.” Rule 28.02(c). 8 “When an applicable MAI-CR instruction is available, that instruction must be given by the trial court as written, and its use will not constitute error.” State v. Davis, 203 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Coday v. Stategreen1 sentence2010S.D.2007) (quoting Coday v. State, 179 S.W.3d 343, 354 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Storeygreen2 sentences2010Rule 28.02(c); State v. Storey, 40 S.W.3d 898, 912 (Mo. banc 2001) (“[wjhenever there is an MAI-CR instruction or verdict form applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI-CR instruction or verdict form shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.”) As the rule requires, this Court must determine the error’s prejudicial effect. 2010Rule 28.02(c); State v. Storey, 40 S.W.3d 898, 912 (Mo. banc 2001) ("[w]henever there is an MAI-CR instruction or verdict form applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI-CR instruction or verdict form shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.") As the rule requires, this Court must determine the error's prejudicial effect. | 1 | 1 |
DALLER v. Pagegreen1 sentence2010Rule 28.02(c) 4 provides “[wjhenever there is an MAI-CR instruction or verdict form applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI-CR instruction or verdict form shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.” MAI-CR 3d 306.06, Notes on Use 4(a) provides that the initial aggressor language should be used “[i]f there is evidence the defendant was the initial aggressor,” whereas, the initial aggressor language should not be used “[i]f there is no evidence indicating the defendant was the initial aggressor or provoked the incident....” “ ‘It is axiomatic tha | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Care and Treatment of Scates v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Deck v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Richardsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. El Dorado Management Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Carsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Roegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gilmoregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McCanngreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harnargreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Olivergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wohlgemuthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Kansas City v. Habelitzgreen | 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. Durham
green
2 sentences2024Rule 28.02(c) provides that “[w]henever there is an MAI–CR instruction or verdict form applicable under the law and Notes on Use, the MAI–CR instruction or verdict form shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction or verdict form.” Durham, 299 S.W.3d at 321 (quoting Rule 28.02(c)). 2024If no MAI–CR form applies, however, “the modified form ‘shall be simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument.’” Durham, 299 S.W.3d at 321 (quoting Rule 28.02(d)); State v. Swartz, 517 S.W.3d 40, 58 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Forrest
green
1 sentence2017"MAI instructions are presumptively valid and, when applicable, must be given to the exclusion of other instructions." State v. Forrest , 183 S.W.3d 218 , 229 (Mo. banc 2006) ; see also Rule 28.02(c) ("Whenever there is an MAI-CR instruction ... applicable under the law and Notes On Use, the MAI-CR instruction ... shall be given or used to the exclusion of any other instruction ...." (emphasis added)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Scott
green
1 sentence2013Scott, 278 S.W.3d at 211 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Smothers
green
1 sentence2012Mathes, 200 S.W.3d at 105 . “[Wjhere there is deviation from an applicable MAI instruction which does not need modification under the facts in the particular case, prejudicial error will be presumed unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from such deviation.” Abbott v. Missouri, Gas Energy, 375 S.W.3d 104, 109 (Mo.App. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Zink green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Cox green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Beck green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. White green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Edwards green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Schwartz v. Emhart Glass Machinery green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Ervin v. Missouri green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Escobar-Orejuela v. United States green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Frey v. Fulcomer green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Laaman v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Bragg green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Martin v. Yeoham green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Peak Ex Rel. Peak v. W. T. Grant Co. green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.