6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2016 0 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. Sibleygreen2 sentences1982It is a matter of common knowledge that the bad character of a man for chastity does not ever in the remotest degree affect his character for truth, when based upon that alone, while it does that of a woman." State v. Sibley, 131 Mo. 519, 531 , 33 S.W. 167, 171 (1895). [4] It has been estimated that the actual number of rapes may be as much as twenty times greater than the number reported, a larger disparity than for any other crime. 1982It is a matter of common knowledge that the bad character of a man for chastity does not ever in the remotest degree affect his character for truth, when based upon that alone, while it does that of a woman." State v. Sibley, 131 Mo. 519, 531 , 33 S.W. 167, 171 (1895). [4] It has been estimated that the actual number of rapes may be as much as twenty times greater than the number reported, a larger disparity than for any other crime. | 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. Smith
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. McRoberts
green
2 sentences2006In McRoberts , the record revealed that prior to the testimony of witness Washington, “the trial court held an in camera hearing regarding Washington’s potential interest in testifying for the [Sítate.” Id. at 20 . ‘Washington’s counsel stated, T can inform the [trial] [c]ourt that no plea bargains or deals have been cut with regard to time or probation or anything regarding [Washington’s] pending case....’” Id. 2006In McRoberts , the record revealed that prior to the testimony of witness Washington, “the trial court held an in camera hearing regarding Washington’s potential interest in testifying for the [Sítate.” Id. at 20 . ‘Washington’s counsel stated, T can inform the [trial] [c]ourt that no plea bargains or deals have been cut with regard to time or probation or anything regarding [Washington’s] pending case....’” Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Naucke
green
1 sentence1994Id. at 457 & n. 4. 8 In Wright, the court determined that none of the child’s incriminating statements fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Boyd
green
1 sentence1992Id. at 829 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Puett v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1981“In view of the lack of specificity in defendant’s application we conclude the trial court could not, on the sole basis of defendant’s application, ascertain whether his claim was ‘necessary in the interest of justice’ or was ‘frivolous and unwarranted.’ ...” Similarly in Puett v. Superior Court for Cty., Etc., 96 Cal.App.3d 936 , 158 Cal.Rptr. 266 (1979), a denial of a motion by an indigent defendant for investigative services was affirmed on the following reasoning: “Notwithstanding the in camera hearing granted defendant, so far as the record shows no particular witness to be interviewed wa 1981“In view of the lack of specificity in defendant’s application we conclude the trial court could not, on the sole basis of defendant’s application, ascertain whether his claim was ‘necessary in the interest of justice’ or was ‘frivolous and unwarranted.’ ...” Similarly in Puett v. Superior Court for Cty., Etc., 96 Cal.App.3d 936 , 158 Cal.Rptr. 266 (1979), a denial of a motion by an indigent defendant for investigative services was affirmed on the following reasoning: “Notwithstanding the in camera hearing granted defendant, so far as the record shows no particular witness to be interviewed wa | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.