In re Care & Treatment of Threats

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re Care & Treatment of Threats

468 S.W.3d 466, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 836, 2015 WL 5025163

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 25, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102124

StatusPublished

This text of 468 S.W.3d 466 (In re Care & Treatment of Threats) 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

In re Care & Treatment of Threats, 468 S.W.3d 466, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 836, 2015 WL 5025163 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Quincy Threats (Appellant) appeals from the probate court’s judgment after a jury trial committing him to secure confinement in the custody of the Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH) as a sexually violent predator (an SVP). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the probate court did not abuse its discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence or in instructing the jury. Care and Treatment of Cokes, 183 S.W.3d 281, 285 (Mo.App. W.D.2005); In re Gorman, 371 S.W.3d 100, 105 (Mo.App.E.D.2012). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We [467]*467affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Quincy Threats (Appellant) appeals from the probate court’s judgment after a jury trial committing him to secure confinement in the custody of the Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH) as a sexually violent predator (an SVP). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the probate court did not abuse its discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence or in instructing the jury. Care and Treatment of Cokes, 183 S.W.3d 281, 285 (Mo.App. W.D.2005); In re Gorman, 371 S.W.3d 100, 105 (Mo.App.E.D.2012). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We [467]*467affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 S.W.3d 466, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 836, 2015 WL 5025163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-care-treatment-of-threats-moctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack