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.
7 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Watson v. Stategreen1 sentence2024In his second point, Miller-Kirkland contends the motion court clearly erred by denying his post-conviction relief claims because Miller-Kirkland was 8 prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object to the involuntary intoxication instruction, which included disjunctives referring to “a drugged condition” and “drugs.” Standard of Review “To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test.” Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. banc 2017) (citi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Piercegreen1 sentence2024Anything short of that does not rise to the level of manifest injustice.” State v. Pierce, 548 S.W.3d 900, 906 (Mo banc 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Ake v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2010See Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . h. 2010See Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . h. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chavezgreen1 sentence2006“Absent a showing to the contrary, we must presume that the jury properly followed the trial court’s instructions in rendering its verdict.” State v. Chavez, 128 S.W.3d 569, 578 (Mo.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Erwingreen1 sentence1995State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476, 481-84 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burroughsgreen1 sentence1988State v. Burroughs, 729 S.W.2d 571, 575 [4] (Mo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2024In his second point, Miller-Kirkland contends the motion court clearly erred by denying his post-conviction relief claims because Miller-Kirkland was 8 prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object to the involuntary intoxication instruction, which included disjunctives referring to “a drugged condition” and “drugs.” Standard of Review “To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test.” Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. banc 2017) (citi 2024Under Strickland, the movant must demonstrate: “(1) his trial counsel failed to exercise the level of skill and diligence that a reasonably competent trial counsel would in a similar situation, and (2) he was prejudiced by that failure.” Id. (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Missouri v. Erwin
green
1 sentence1995State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476, 481-84 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Baber v. Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline
green
1 sentence1995State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476, 481-84 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Baker
green
1 sentence1987In the case at bar, the appellant’s theory of involuntary intoxication was not offered by third persons, but by appellant so that under the authority of State v. Baker, supra, the court did not err in refusing the involuntary intoxication instruction. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.