State v. Gooch’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 1982
14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Foster · State v. Butler · Newman v. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. · State v. Thost · State v. Hopkins
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That Jerry Croney was duly convicted in the Circuit Court of Howell County, Missouri, of the crime of Burglary and Larceny (5 charges), an offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, and in accordance with said conviction, Jerry Croney, on the 14th day of July, 1965, did receive from the said Court ten five-year concurrent sentences, and in accordance with said judgment and sentence, he was duly imprisoned. “That thereafter on the 12th day of November, 1966, at Cole County, Missouri, the defendant, Jerry Croney, was lawfully confined in the auxiliary prison, an institution under the control of the State Department of Corrections of the State of Missouri, and the said Jerry Croney did on the 12th of November, 1966, unlawfully and feloniously escape therefrom and go at large, against the peace and dignity of the State.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Croney““Appellant’s second point is that the court failed to instruct the jury in writing upon all questions of law necessary for their guidance, as required by Criminal Rule 26.02(6) V.A.M.R., by failing to instruct on the two defenses of lack of intent to escape and double jeopardy. The alleged error was not presented to the trial court in the motion for new trial, and therefore has not been preserved for appellate review. “Not having raised the point in his motion for new trial, appellant may not raise it in this court for the first time. State v. Caffey, Mo.Sup., 404 S.W.2d 171 ; State v. Butler, Mo.Sup., 310 S.W.2d 952 ; State v. Hopkins, 278 Mo. 388 , 213 S.W. 126 ; State v. Perrigin, 258 Mo. 233 , 167 S.W. 573 ; State v. Douglas, 258 Mo. 281 , 167 S.W. 552 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Goodman
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.