Boothe v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
May 1989
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Jewell · State v. Boothe · State v. Jenkins · State v. Hoyt · Hayes v. State
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.
“1. No indictment or information shall be deemed invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be stayed, arrested or in any manner affected: (6) For stating the time imperfectly; nor (18) For any other defect or imperfection which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Parker · State v. White“Our decisions ... do not regard the indictment as altogether inviolable after return of the grand jury, but in the manner authorized by the criminal statute of jeofails (§ 545.030 RSMo 1969) allow amendment of form which does not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. [Petitioner] does not deny that the indictments fairly charged murder in the first degree but only that the amendments to statutory felony-murder changed the substance of the grand jury accusations against him and thus invalidated the convictions. The law does not consider, however, statutory murder (under § 559.010 as then in effect) a distinct offense but only one means of commit ting murder in the first degree. State v. Jewell, 473 S.W.2d 734, 738 (Mo. 1971). Thus, an accusation which charges murder in the first degree in the common form allows proof of statutory felony-murder. State v. Jenkins, 494 S.W.2d 14, 17 (Mo.1973). The amendments did nothing more than further specify the proof that the State intended to make, just as though the defendant had been granted a bill of particulars . . . . They worked no prejudice to the defendant but rather facilitated the confrontation of issues already implicit in the indictment as originally stated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Boothe v. Wyrick
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.