green
Positive treatment
16.5 score
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hankins
“Such statements, and any reasonable inferences that1 may be drawn from those statements, ‘may alone constitute substantial evidence of an element of the offense charged.' '' State v. Benwire, 98 S.W.3d 618, 623 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (quoting State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 156 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996)). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Matson
State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 156-57 (Mo. App. 1996) (reversing a sodomy conviction where only ambiguous evidence indicated the defendant touched victim’s vagina with his hand). “[TJhis Court will not weigh the evidence anew since the fact-finder may believe all, some, or none of the testimony of a witness when considered with the facts, circumstances and other testimony in the case.” State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Mo. banc 2008) (quotes omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lane
“Such statements, and any inferences that may be drawn from those statements, ‘may alone constitute substantial evidence of an element of the offense charged.’ ” Benwire, 98 S.W.3d at 623 (quoting State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 156 (Mo.App.1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ray
Such statements, and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those statements, “may alone constitute substantial evidence of an element of the offense charged.” State v. Benwire, 98 S.W.3d 618, 623 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) (citing State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 156 (Mo.App.E.D.1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ralston
D.L. told her that the “sexual encounters” happened from Christmas of 2008 until May 2009; she documented that D.L. stated that she had experienced penile and digital penetration; and D.L. denied having engaged in either oral or anal sex. 10 Defendant argues that “[Ms.] Huffman’s testimony did not clearly establish that [D.L.] told her that during the charged time period that [Defendant’s hands touched her vagina.” Defendant cites State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 156 (Mo. App. E.D.1996), where the court found that a sodomy conviction could not stand on a caseworker’s testimony that…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Benwire
Such statements, and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those statements, “may alone constitute substantial evidence of an element of the offense charged.” State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 156 (Mo.App.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bass
See State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 672 (Mo. banc 1995); State v. Long, 972 S.W.2d *607 559, 562-63 (Mo.App.1998); State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App.1996); State v. Walker, 972 S.W.2d 623, 627 (Mo.App.1998). 3 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Montgomery
Supp.1993; State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 156-57 (Mo.App.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Werneke
State v. Redman, 916 S.W.2d 787, 792 (Mo. banc 1996); State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 672 (Mo. banc 1995); State v. Kelley, 945 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Mo.App.1997); State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kaufman v. Director of Revenue
See State v. Goad, 926 S.W.2d 152, 156-57 (Mo.App.1996) (affirming a rape conviction supported by sufficient evidence but reversing a sodomy conviction where only ambiguous — and therefore insufficient — evidence indicated the defendant touched victim’s vagina with his hand); Auto.
Sherry L. ELBERS, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant/Respondent
v.
Robert W. SMITH, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Appellant
v.
Robert W. SMITH, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Appellant
No. 68818.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jun 4, 1996.
M. Dwight Robbins, Frederiektown, for defendant/respondent., Donald Rhodes, Bloomfield, for plaintiff/appellant.
Crane, Flanigan, Hoff.
Published
ORDER
Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment which awarded plaintiff portions of certain property held by the parties while they lived together unmarried. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find that the circuit court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).