Jackson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jackson v. State

525 S.W.3d 172, 2017 WL 3480728, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 773

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 15, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104337

StatusPublished

This text of 525 S.W.3d 172 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. State, 525 S.W.3d 172, 2017 WL 3480728, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 773 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Donnie Jackson (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant argues that a laboratory report admitted during trial violated his confrontation clause rights. He further argues that the State made DNA testing unavailable to him prior to trial by withholding his blood test results and failing to disclose its intent to use his blood test results at trial. We affirm the judgment of the motion court.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Donnie Jackson (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant argues that a laboratory report admitted during trial violated his confrontation clause rights. He further argues that the State made DNA testing unavailable to him prior to trial by withholding his blood test results and failing to disclose its intent to use his blood test results at trial. We affirm the judgment of the motion court.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 S.W.3d 172, 2017 WL 3480728, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-state-moctapp-2017.