State v. Graham

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the exclusion of a recorded conversation was not prejudicial because the defendant “was able to give context to the State’s 17 incriminating evidence through other parts of” an admitted recording

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Carr v. Ferrell-Duncan Obgyn Clinic
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2018-01-16· cited 1×
• STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MICHAEL MOORE
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2024-01-11
• State of Missouri v. Troy Jackson-Bey
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2023-06-27
• STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JAMES L. LANCASTER
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2024-08-26
• STATE OF MISSOURI v. RANDALL LEE ABNEY
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2024-01-17
• Mark C. Brandolese v. State of Missouri
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2025-05-27

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Chambers
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1995-01-24· cited 134×
• State v. Williams
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 2003-03-04· cited 74×
• State Ex Rel. Kemper v. Vincent
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 2006-05-16· cited 49×
• State of Missouri v. Marion Clyde Ellis
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2016-12-27· cited 30×
• State v. Jackson
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2010-06-15· cited 11×
• State of Missouri v. Randy E. Twitty
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 2017-01-17· cited 10×