Care & Treatment of Jones v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Care & Treatment of Jones v. State

157 S.W.3d 236, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1898, 2004 WL 2853009

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 14, 2004

DocketED 83931

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.W.3d 236 (Care & Treatment of Jones v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Care & Treatment of Jones v. State, 157 S.W.3d 236, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1898, 2004 WL 2853009 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rickey Jones (Jones) appeals from the judgment and order of civil commitment following a jury trial. The trial court ordered Jones to be committed to secure confinement in the custody of the department of mental health as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Section 632.480 through Section 632.513, RSMo 2000 and RSMo Cum.Supp.2003. Jones argues the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the State’s Instruction No. 8 instead of either of his alternative instructions. Jones contends Instruction No. 8 was an incomplete expression of the consequences of finding Jones to be a sexually violent predator and Jones was thereby prejudiced.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rickey Jones (Jones) appeals from the judgment and order of civil commitment following a jury trial. The trial court ordered Jones to be committed to secure confinement in the custody of the department of mental health as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Section 632.480 through Section 632.513, RSMo 2000 and RSMo Cum.Supp.2003. Jones argues the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the State’s Instruction No. 8 instead of either of his alternative instructions. Jones contends Instruction No. 8 was an incomplete expression of the consequences of finding Jones to be a sexually violent predator and Jones was thereby prejudiced.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 236, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1898, 2004 WL 2853009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/care-treatment-of-jones-v-state-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack