In re the Care & Treatment of Bolden

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re the Care & Treatment of Bolden

460 S.W.3d 478, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 362, 2015 WL 1547914

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 2015

DocketNo. ED101604

StatusPublished

This text of 460 S.W.3d 478 (In re the Care & Treatment of Bolden) 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 the Care & Treatment of Bolden, 460 S.W.3d 478, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 362, 2015 WL 1547914 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Bolden appeals from the probate court’s judgment entered 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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain expert opinion testimony. Whitnell v. State, 129 S.W.3d 409, 413 (Mo.App.E.D.2004). 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 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.

Charles Bolden appeals from the probate court’s judgment entered 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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain expert opinion testimony. Whitnell v. State, 129 S.W.3d 409, 413 (Mo.App.E.D.2004). 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 judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 S.W.3d 478, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 362, 2015 WL 1547914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-care-treatment-of-bolden-moctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack