Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 975 S.W.2d 460 - State v. Garrison

State v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
May 2005
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wright v. Wright · Insurance Co. of North America v. United States Department of Labor · State v. Mease · State v. Johnson · State v. McNaughton

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

  1. “If you do not find [Appellant] guilty of assault in the first degree under Instruction No. _, you must consider whether he is guilty of assault in the third degree. If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: That on or about May 21, 2002, in the County of Saline, State of Missouri, [Appellant] recklessly created a grave risk of serious physical injury to Pattrick [sic] J. Griggs by repeatedly striking him with [Appellant]’s hands and knocking him out of a motor vehicle, then you will find [Appellant] guilty under this instruction of assault in the third degree. [[Image here]] As used in this instruction, the term “recklessly” means to consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. [[Image here]]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Trial courts need not instruct on a lesser included offense unless the evidence provides a basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the greater offense and convicting him of the lesser offense. State v. Mease, 842 S.W.2d 98, 110-11 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 918 , 113 S.Ct. 2363 , 124 L.Ed.2d 269 (1993). This means that the giving of a lesser included offense instruction is limited to those cases where there is some affirmative evidence that could form the basis of an acquittal of the greater offense and a conviction of the lesser included offense. [State v.] McNaughton, 924 S.W.2d [517] at 527 [ (Mo.App.1996) ]. A defendant is not entitled to a lesser included offense instruction merely because the jury might disbelieve some of the state’s evidence or decline to draw some or all of the permissible inferences. Id.”
    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.