§

State v. White

92 S.W.3d 183 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)
State v. White

40 Citing cases

  1. State v. Beck

    167 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 49 times
    In Beck, this Court concluded that reversible plain error occurred because the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it could consider the actions of multiple assailants in determining whether the defendant acted in self-defense, thereby relieving the State of its burden of proof. 167 S.W.3d at 785–89.

    Specifically, he claims that in order to correctly instruct the jury on the law of self-defense in his case, the trial court should have modified, sua sponte, Instruction No. 11 to expressly instruct the jury that, in determining whether he reasonably believed he was "in imminent danger of harm," justifying his using physical force against the victim to defend himself, it could consider not only the imminent danger of harm from the victim, but the imminent danger of harm from the victim's friends, who he believed were acting in concert with the victim to harm him. MAI-CR 3d 306.06, the mandatory MAI-CR 3d instruction for submitting self-defense, Note on Use 2; State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 191 (Mo.App. 2002), reads, in pertinent part: PART A — GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

  2. State v. Neal

    304 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    "Where a conviction is reversed solely for trial error, such as the instructional error found in this case, retrial does not offend double jeopardy and is constitutionally permissible." State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 193 (Mo.App. 2002); see State v. Neher, 213 S.W.3d 44, 48 (Mo. banc 2007). "The prospect of retrial raises the question of what proceedings [can] be had on remand."

  3. State v. Stock

    No. WD86198 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2024)

    "In the context of instructional error, reversible plain error results when the trial court has so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury that it is apparent to the appellate court that the instructional error affected the jury's verdict." State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192 (Mo. App. 2002) (citation omitted).

  4. State v. Galbreath

    244 S.W.3d 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 9 times

    In analyzing whether erroneously used words in an instruction affected the jury's verdict, Cooper, 215 S.W.3d at 125, we look at how a reasonable juror would interpret the words used, and typically will not reverse when the word is merely ambiguous and does not excuse the State from its burden of proof on an element of the offense. State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192 (Mo.App. 2002). The concern in Puig was that the prosecutor in his closing argument defined "acted together with" for the jury as meaning Puig's conduct in urging the officers to purchase marijuana from Anderson, when there was no evidence in the record supporting that Puig did in fact urge the officers to purchase marijuana.

  5. State v. January

    176 S.W.3d 187 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 14 times
    Holding the failure to instruct on a claim-of-right defense "alone is sufficient for us to find manifest injustice and a miscarriage of justice"

    Id.; State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192-93 (Mo.App. 2002). Otherwise, in violation of due process, the State could obtain a conviction without the jury deliberating on and determining a contested proof element.

  6. State v. Taylor

    166 S.W.3d 599 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 19 times

    If in our discretion we decide to review Defendant's claim of plain error, Defendant must show that the trial court's error so substantially violated his rights that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice would result if the error is left uncorrected. State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Mo.App. 2002). Plain error "is error that is evident, obvious and clear."

  7. State v. Thurston

    104 S.W.3d 839 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 12 times

    If in our discretion we decide to review Appellant's claim of plain error, Appellant must show that the trial court's error so substantially violated his rights that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice would result if the error is left uncorrected. State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Mo.App. 2002); Reynolds, 72 S.W.3d at 305. Plain error "is error that is evident, obvious and clear."

  8. United States v. Naylor

    887 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2018)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that "Missouri law provides a clear answer" to the elements/means inquiry and the court "need not resort to taking a ‘peek at the record documents’ "

    But disjunctive jury instructions do not require juries to find each alternative unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a defining characteristic of elements. See State v. Stover, 388 S.W.3d 138, 153–54 (Mo. banc 2012) ; State v. Richter, 504 S.W.3d 205, 211–12 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) ; State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192–93 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) ; see also Mathis, 136 S.Ct. at 2248, 2257 ; id. at 2268 (Alito, J., dissenting). Simply put, substantial evidence is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

  9. State v. Stover

    388 S.W.3d 138 (Mo. 2012)   Cited 87 times
    Finding plain error and reversing conviction where omission of essential element from jury instructions relieved State of its burden

    “Clear and obvious instructional error is rarely found to result in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice, requiring reversal for plain error.” State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192 (Mo.App.2002).

  10. State v. Cooper

    215 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. 2007)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that omission of "knowingly enter[ing] Victim's house ‘unlawfully’ " from the instructions was prejudicial

    A verdict directing instruction that omits an essential element rises to the level of plain error if the evidence establishing the omitted element was seriously disputed. State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 192 (Mo.App. 2003). On the other hand, if the evidence establishing the omitted element was not in dispute, the jury's verdict would not have been affected and no plain error relief need be given.