8 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2025 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. Reesegreen2 sentences1970Under State v. Reese, 364 Mo. 1221 , 274 S.W.2d 304, 307 (cited by appellant), the courts will rigidly scrutinize this class of evidence as to whether its tendency “is to raise a legally spurious presumption of guilt in the minds of the jurors,” and whether the court can “clearly perceive the connection between the extraneous criminal transaction and the crime charged, that is, its logical relevancy.” That case holds that if the court cannot do so, “the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the evidence should be rejected.” The often-stated exceptions to the general exclusionar 1970Under State v. Reese, 364 Mo. 1221 , 274 S.W.2d 304, 307 (cited by appellant), the courts will rigidly scrutinize this class of evidence as to whether its tendency “is to raise a legally spurious presumption of guilt in the minds of the jurors,” and whether the court can “clearly perceive the connection between the extraneous criminal transaction and the crime charged, that is, its logical relevancy.” That case holds that if the court cannot do so, “the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the evidence should be rejected.” The often-stated exceptions to the general exclusionar | 2 | 2 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence2025State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455, 473 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Princegreen1 sentence2021Specific to determining the legal relevance of prior bad acts, exceptions to the general exclusionary rule include evidence bearing on the following: “(1) motive; (2) identity of the person charged; (3) intent; (4) absence of mistake or accident; (5) a common scheme or plan; or (6) a complete and coherent picture of the circumstances and events surrounding the charged crime.” State v. Coleman, 580 S.W.3d 11 , 13 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (internal citation omitted); see also Prince, 534 S.W.3d at 818 . 7 Here, the challenged evidence consisted of Thomas pushing Neighbor, a woman, in the darkened ap | 1 | 1 |
State v. Claygreen1 sentence1990State v. Merritt, 734 S.W.2d 926, 933 [13] (Mo.App.1987); State v. Clay, 686 S.W.2d 516, 518 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Merrittgreen1 sentence1990State v. Merritt, 734 S.W.2d 926, 933 [13] (Mo.App.1987); State v. Clay, 686 S.W.2d 516, 518 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences1992Jones, 460 So.2d at 1390 . 1992Jones, 460 So.2d at 1390 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence1991In State v. Williams, 539 S.W.2d 530 (Mo.App.1976), police officers searched the defendant’s apartment and discovered quantities of heroin on top of a dresser in Williams’ bedroom. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Reed
green
1 sentence1972In State v. Reed, supra, this court followed the rule set forth in State v. Reese, supra, and held that the evidence of the June 14th sale fell within the general exclusionary rule and not within any excep *89 tion thereto. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.