State v. Secrease

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that under Missouri law, the test for whether identification testimony is admissible depends on whether the identification was impermissibly suggestive, and if so, whether this suggestiveness had an impact on the reliability of the identification
• “Pre-trial ‘show-ups’ are valid under Missouri law even where the subject is in handcuffs and the officers say Defendant is a suspect.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Murray
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2014-04-15· cited 23×
• State v. Eoff
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2006-04-13· cited 18×
• State v. Lawrence
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2002-01-17· cited 9×
• Michael A. Clark v. Paul D. Caspari
  Eighth Circuit· 2001-11-28· cited 6×
• State v. Moore
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1996-06-11· cited 6×
• State v. Fyfe
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1996-05-21· cited 3×
• State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Kevin Murray
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2014-04-15
• Michael Clark v. Paul Caspari
  Eighth Circuit· 2001-11-28

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Grim
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1993-05-25· cited 551×
• State v. Dulany
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1989-12-12· cited 326×
• State v. Hornbuckle
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1989-04-18· cited 178×
• State v. Hoopingarner
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1993-01-12· cited 31×
• State v. White
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1990-04-10· cited 16×
• State v. Clark
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1991-04-16· cited 12×
• State v. Hutchinson
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1987-08-11· cited 9×
• State v. Gillis
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1991-06-18· cited 5×