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.
6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 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. Boldengreen2 sentences2025Burkett claimed he only wanted to scare Victim. 5 Analysis Burkett claims the trial court plainly erred in failing to sua sponte give a self- defense instruction to the jury. 3 "If the defendant injects self-defense into the case and there is substantial evidence to support a self-defense instruction, it is reversible error for the trial court to fail to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury under plain error review." State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Mo. banc 2012). 2020"If . . . there is substantial evidence to support a self-defense instruction, it is reversible error for the trial court to fail to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury under plain error review." State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Mo. banc 2012). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Westfallgreen2 sentences2016Defendant then argues for a per se application of the Westfall rule because. the duty .to instruct on self-defense where supported by the evidence is so strong that, ,“[i]f the defendant injects self-defense into the case and there is substantial evidence to support a self-defense instruction, it is reversible error for the trial court to fail to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury under plain error review.” State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Mo. banc 2012), citing Westfall, 75 S.W.3d at 281 n.9. 2014See also State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 806, 805-06 (Mo. banc 2012) (“If the defendant injects self-defense into the case and there is substantial evidence to support a self-defense instruction, it is reversible error for the trial court to fail to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury under plain error review. [Westfall, 75 S.W.3d at 281 n. 9]”; State v. Mangum, 390 S.W.3d 853, 861 (Mo.App. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Averyred1 sentence2015State v. Hiltibidal, 292 S.W.3d 488, 494 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009), “If the defendant injects self-defense into the case and there is substantial evidence to support a self-defense instruction, it is reversible error for the trial court to fail to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury under plain error review.” State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Mo. banc 2012). “ ‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence putting a *811 matter in issue.” State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196, 200 (Mo. banc 2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nunngreen1 sentence2015“Whether the evidence raises the issue of self-defense is a question of law.” State v. Nunn, 697 S.W.2d 244, 246 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hiltibidalgreen1 sentence2015State v. Hiltibidal, 292 S.W.3d 488, 494 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009), “If the defendant injects self-defense into the case and there is substantial evidence to support a self-defense instruction, it is reversible error for the trial court to fail to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury under plain error review.” State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Mo. banc 2012). “ ‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence putting a *811 matter in issue.” State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196, 200 (Mo. banc 2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mangumgreen1 sentence2014See also State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802, 806, 805-06 (Mo. banc 2012) (“If the defendant injects self-defense into the case and there is substantial evidence to support a self-defense instruction, it is reversible error for the trial court to fail to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury under plain error review. [Westfall, 75 S.W.3d at 281 n. 9]”; State v. Mangum, 390 S.W.3d 853, 861 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||