State v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Plain error and prejudicial error are not synonymous terms. State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 [4] (Mo.1983). Relief under the plain error standard is granted only when an alleged error so substantially affects a defendant’s rights that a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice inexorably results if left uncorrected. State v. Hadley, 815 S.W.2d 422, 423 [1] (Mo. bane 1991). Appellate courts use the plain error rule sparingly and limit its application to those cases where there is a strong, clear demonstration of manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. State v. Collis, 849 S.W.2d 660, 663 [1] (Mo. App.1993). The determination of whether plain error exists must be based on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. State v. Cline, 808 S.W.2d 822, 824 [5] (Mo. banc 1991). A defendant bears the burden of demonstrating manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. State v. Harrison, 864 S.W.2d 387, 389 [3] (Mo.App.1993).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tivis · State v. Belton

2. “Plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.”

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