Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 971 SW2D 861 - State v. McCoy

State v. McCoy’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2010

15 state decisions

120199820002010decided

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. Olson · State v. Cline · State v. Hadley · State v. Doolittle · State v. Martindale

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

  1. “As to Count I, if you do not find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, you must consider whether he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about January 2, 1999, in the County of Pemiscot, State of Missouri, the defendant caused the death of Terry Lee Busby by shooting him, and Second, that defendant recklessly caused the death of Terry Lee Busby, then you will find the defendant guilty under Count I of involuntary manslaughter. However, unless you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of involuntary manslaughter. In determining whether the defendant recklessly caused the death of Terry Lee Busby, you are instructed that a person acts recklessly as to causing the death of another person when there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk he will cause death and he consciously disregards that risk, and such disregard is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances. [[Image here]]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “As to Count I, if you do not find the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree, you must consider whether he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. As to Count I, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about the 3rd day of June, 1997, in the County of Buchanan, State of Missouri, the defendant caused the death of Tony Coone by shooting him, and Second, that defendant recklessly caused the death of Tony Coone, then you will find the defendant guilty under Count I of involuntary manslaughter .... In determining whether the defendant recklessly caused the death of Tony Coone, you are instructed that a person acts recklessly as to causing the death of another person when there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk he will cause death and he consciously disregards that risk, and such disregard is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances. * * * ⅜ ⅜”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “‘Sudden passion’ means ‘passion caused by and arising out of provocation by the victim ... which ... arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.’ Section 565.002(7) RSMo 1994. ‘Adequate cause’ means ‘cause that would reasonably produce a degree of passion in a person of ordinary temperament sufficient to substantially impair an ordinary person’s capacity for self-control.’ Section 565.002(1) RSMo 1994. For adequate cause to exist, a sudden, unexpected encounter or provocation must excite an uncontrolled passion, be it rage, anger, or terror. State v. Boyd, 913 S.W.2d 888, 848 (Mo.App.1995). The offense must have been done in a sudden passion and not after there has been a time to cool.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.