In re Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re Johnson

474 S.W.3d 603, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2015 WL 6926463

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102530

StatusPublished

This text of 474 S.W.3d 603 (In re Johnson) 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 Johnson, 474 S.W.3d 603, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2015 WL 6926463 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Larry Johnson (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered pursuant to a jury verdict committing him to secure confinement in the custody of the Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator. In two points on appeal, Appellant claims that the probate court clearly erred by overruling his Batson challenges to the State’s peremptory strikes of two venire-persons because the State’s reasons were not clear, reasonably specific, or legitimate. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for pur decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). -

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Larry Johnson (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered pursuant to a jury verdict committing him to secure confinement in the custody of the Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator. In two points on appeal, Appellant claims that the probate court clearly erred by overruling his Batson challenges to the State’s peremptory strikes of two venire-persons because the State’s reasons were not clear, reasonably specific, or legitimate. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for pur decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 S.W.3d 603, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2015 WL 6926463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johnson-moctapp-2015.