State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently November 2008 · most notably Deck v. State (2002), State v. Valentine (1983)
41 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 Patterson v. United States · State v. Murphy · State v. Heinrich · State v. Patterson · State v. Armstead
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unfortunately, no talismanic method exists for determining “plain error”. It can be said, however, that “plain error” is “prejudicial error” which so substantially affects the rights of an accused that “manifest injustice” or a “miscarriage of justice” inexorably results if left uncorrected. Thus, “plain error” is a unique and elusive concept because of its lack of fixed dimension. Consequently, it has been judicially recognized that the existence or non-existence of “plain error” must be coped with on a case to case basis and rebalanced each time against the particular facts and circumstances of each case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harnar · State v. Hooker“A person is responsible for his own conduct and he is also responsible for the conduct of other persons in committing an offense if he acts with them with the common purpose of committing that offense, or if, for the purpose of committing that offense, he aids or encourages the other persons in committing it. If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on November 2, 1981, in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, the defendant knowingly entered unlawfully in a building located at 4012 Enright and owned by Paul McNeal, and Second, that the defendant did so for the purpose of committing the crime of stealing therein, then you are instructed that the offense of burglary in the second degree has occurred, and if you further find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: Third, that with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of burglary in the second degree, the defendant acted together with or aided James Thomas and James Cody in committing that offense, then you will find the defendant guilty of burglary in the second degree. However, if you do not 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. A person commits the crime of stealing if he appropriates property or services of another with the purpose of depriving him thereof, either without his consent or by means of deceit or coercion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mason“For instructional error to rise to the level of plain error, the trial court must have so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury so that it is apparent that the instructional error affected the verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Deck v. State
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.