Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 SW3D 324 - State v. Jones

State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Tisius · State v. Barriner · State v. Candela · Fugate v. Fugate · State v. Bass

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “‘To preserve a claim that evidence was improperly excluded, the proponent of the evidence must attempt to present the evidence at trial, and if an objection is sustained, the proponent must then make an offer of proof.’ State v. Speaks, 298 S.W.3d 70, 85 (Mo. App. 2009). An offer of proof is necessary not only to provide the circuit court the opportunity to further consider whether the evidence should be admitted but also to provide the appellate court with the scope and effect of the excluded evidence. State v. Tisius, 92 S.W.3d 751, 767-68 (Mo. banc 2002). An offer of proof must establish: ‘(1) what the evidence will be; (2) the purpose and object of the evidence; and (3) each fact essential to establishing the admissibility of the evidence.’ Id. at 767 . Absent an offer of proof, the claim that evidence was excluded in error is only reviewable for plain error at the court’s discretion. Id. at 768 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.