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.
8 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2025 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. Stephensgreen2 sentences2019Rule 30.20. "[I]n the context of plain error review, we will reverse the trial court's denial of [an] appellant's motion for new trial only if we determine that its ruling was an obvious and clear abuse of discretion, which affected a substantial right of the appellant and resulted in manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice." Stephens, 88 S.W.3d at 881 . 2017In the context of plain error review, we will reverse the denial of a motion for new trial only if we find “an obvious and clear abuse of discretion, which affected a substantial right of the appellant and resulted in manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice.” State v. Stephens, 88 S.W.3d 876, 881 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Middletongreen1 sentence2019We agree with Brown that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the State to advise the jury about the law of resisting arrest by reference to external sources other than the jury instructions. "'A trial court maintains broad discretion in the control of closing arguments.'" State v. Smith, 422 S.W.3d 411, 415 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 455 (Mo. banc), cert denied, 528 U.S. 1054 (1999)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2006State v. Smith, 181 S.W.3d 634, 638 (Mo.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fowlergreen1 sentence1995That M.J.S. was 11-years-old and not married to Kilmartin was uncontested at trial. 4 “[N]o manifest injustice [results] from failing to submit to the jury an element of the crime which was not specifically controverted.” State v. Fowler, 762 S.W.2d 540, 541 (Mo.App.1988) (plain error review). | 1 | 1 |
Witherspoon v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1987That court obviously did not examine the effect of the alleged error except in the context of plain error. 1 *826 One of the leading cases dealing with the qualifications of veniremen or jurors in a capital case at the time this case was tried is Witherspoon v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), rehearing denied, 393 U.S. 898 , 89 S.Ct. 67 , 21 L.Ed.2d 186 (1968). 1987That court obviously did not examine the effect of the alleged error except in the context of plain error. 1 *826 One of the leading cases dealing with the qualifications of veniremen or jurors in a capital case at the time this case was tried is Witherspoon v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), rehearing denied, 393 U.S. 898 , 89 S.Ct. 67 , 21 L.Ed.2d 186 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huntergreen1 sentence1985State v. Hunter, 626 S.W.2d 398, 402 [2] (Mo.App.1981); Rule 29.12(b) 1 . | 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. Craig Michael Wood
green
1 sentence2025To demonstrate manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in the context of plain error review, “the appellant must show the error was outcome determinative.” State v. Wood, 580 S.W.3d 566 , 579 (Mo. banc 2019) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 6 Analysis Point I Creekmore’s first point on appeal contends that: The trial court abused its discretion in overruling [Creekmore’s] objection and permitting [the State] to argue the shot to [Victim’s] shoulder “[was] shot number one” because this violated [Creekmore’s] right to due process of law and to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fou | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Middleton v. Missouri
green
1 sentence2019We agree with Brown that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the State to advise the jury about the law of resisting arrest by reference to external sources other than the jury instructions. "'A trial court maintains broad discretion in the control of closing arguments.'" State v. Smith, 422 S.W.3d 411, 415 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 455 (Mo. banc), cert denied, 528 U.S. 1054 (1999)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2019We agree with Brown that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the State to advise the jury about the law of resisting arrest by reference to external sources other than the jury instructions. "'A trial court maintains broad discretion in the control of closing arguments.'" State v. Smith, 422 S.W.3d 411, 415 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 455 (Mo. banc), cert denied, 528 U.S. 1054 (1999)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.