State v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. O'BRIEN · State v. Roper · State v. Hibler · State v. Jones · State v. Stallings
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to Count One, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about November 9, 2011 and November 10, 2011, in the County of Camden, State of Missouri, the defendant enticed a minor female known as Ally by requesting a sexy picture, by sending three pictures of himself including a picture of his penis, by asking if the minor female known as Ally wanted to hold his penis and by asking, "Do you want to come see me now that you've saw my package?”, and Second, that the defendant did so for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct with a minor female known as Ally, and Third, that at that time, the minor female known as Ally was less than fifteen years of age, and Fourth, that it was the defendant’s purpose to have sexual conduct with a person less than fifteen years of age, and Fifth, that defendant was twenty-one years of age or older, and Sixth, that defendant was not entrapped as submitted in Instruction No. 8, then you will find the defendant guilty under Count One of enticement of a child under this instruction. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense. It is no defense to a prosecution for the offense of enticement of a child that the other person was a peace officer masquerading as a minor. As used in this instruction, "sexual conduct” means sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse or sexual con”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Issues that were not preserved may be reviewed for plain error only, which requires the reviewing court to find that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has resulted from the trial court error. Review for plain error involves a two-step process. The first step requires a determination of whether the claim of error facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted. All prejudicial error, however, is not plain error, and plain errors are those which are evident, obvious, and clear. If plain error is found, the court then must proceed to the second step and determine whether the claimed error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.”
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.