In re Taylor

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re Taylor

380 S.W.3d 613, 2012 WL 4078919, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 18, 2012·No. No. ED 97769·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Taylor 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 as a sexually violent predator. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found each necessary element by clear and convincing evidence. In re A.B., 334 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision 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.

Stephen Taylor 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 as a sexually violent predator. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found each necessary element by clear and convincing evidence. In re A.B., 334 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

In re Taylor, 380 S.W.3d 613, 2012 WL 4078919, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

380 S.W.3d 613 (In re Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related