State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 state decisions

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]nstructional error seldom constitutes plain error, which requires a defendant to demonstrate more than mere prejudice. [State v. Roe, 6 S.W.3d 411, 415 (Mo.App.1999) ].... For instructional error to rise to the level of plain error, the trial court must have so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury that it is apparent to the appellate court that the instructional error affected the jury’s verdict. Id.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lopez · State v. Goucher

2. “[a]s to Count II, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about [the] 19th day of June, 2007, ... [Officer] Rogers and [Corporal] Waynick were law enforcement officers, Second, that [Officer] Rogers and [Corporal] Waynick were making an arrest of [Appellant] for failure to appear, and Third, that [Appellant] knew or reasonably should have known that a law enforcement officer was making an arrest of [Appellant], and Fourth, that for the purpose of preventing the law enforcement officer from making the arrest, [Appellant] resisted arrest by fleeing from the officer, then you will find [Appellant] guilty under Count II of resisting arrest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lopez · State v. Lemons

3. “Rule 30.20 is no panacea for unpre-served error[ ] and does not justify review of all such complaintsf ] but is used sparingly and limited to error that is evident, obvious, and clear. Not all prejudicial error — that is, reversible error — can be deemed plain error. A defendant’s Rule 30.20 burden is much greater — not merely to show prejudice[ ] but manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice — which in this context means outcome-determinative error. We are not required to review for plain error; to do so is within our discretion. The two-step analysis is (1) did the trial court commit evident, obvious, and clear error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights; and (2) if so, did such plain error actually result in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice? Unless a defendant gets past the first step, any inquiry should end.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Simmons