State v. Bratton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that there can be no prejudice under Rule 23.08 when the language removed from the charging document is unnecessary to the crime charged
• noting that there can be no prejudice under Rule 23.08 when the language removed from the charging document is unnecessary to the crime charged
• approving charge amendment “after the instructions had been read but before the case was submitted to the jury,” id. at 634

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Seeler
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 2010-07-16· cited 29×
• State v. Johnson
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1991-06-11· cited 16×
• State v. Endicott
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1994-08-23· cited 12×
• Alexander v. State
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1993-09-07· cited 7×
• State v. Laughlin
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1995-06-19· cited 6×
• State v. Larner
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1992-11-10· cited 4×
• State v. Walter
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1996-03-26· cited 2×
• STATE OF MISSOURI v. LARRY W. TARVER, JR.
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2020-11-03
• STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ALEJANDRO FLORES-MARTINEZ
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2022-09-12

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Doyle v. Ohio
  Supreme Court· 1976-06-17· cited 4,773×
• State v. Stuart
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1970-07-13· cited 82×
• State v. Lindsay
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1986-04-01· cited 14×
• State v. Sipes
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1983-05-02· cited 13×
• State v. Carter
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1989-05-16· cited 6×
• State v. Hendrix
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1984-07-17· cited 2×