Crawford v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Crawford v. State

256 S.W.3d 150, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 644, 2008 WL 2019581

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 2008

DocketWD 68283

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 S.W.3d 150 (Crawford 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

Crawford v. State, 256 S.W.3d 150, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 644, 2008 WL 2019581 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals a judgment granting post-conviction relief to Taron Crawford. Crawford was convicted of murder in the second-degree. At trial, while Crawford was being cross-examined, the State repeatedly questioned him concerning the veracity of other witnesses. Crawford’s trial counsel failed to consistently object to this line of questioning. After being convicted, Crawford sought relief for ineffective assistance of counsel under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The motion court granted the relief requested and vacated the sentence. The State now appeals claiming the trial court failed to make certain findings and arrived at its judgment by misapplying Strickland, v. Washington. We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals a judgment granting post-conviction relief to Taron Crawford. Crawford was convicted of murder in the second-degree. At trial, while Crawford was being cross-examined, the State repeatedly questioned him concerning the veracity of other witnesses. Crawford’s trial counsel failed to consistently object to this line of questioning. After being convicted, Crawford sought relief for ineffective assistance of counsel under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The motion court granted the relief requested and vacated the sentence. The State now appeals claiming the trial court failed to make certain findings and arrived at its judgment by misapplying Strickland, v. Washington. We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.W.3d 150, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 644, 2008 WL 2019581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack