King v. State

266 S.W.3d 868, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1428, 2008 WL 4634104
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 21, 2008
DocketED 90760
StatusPublished

This text of 266 S.W.3d 868 (King 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
King v. State, 266 S.W.3d 868, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1428, 2008 WL 4634104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy King (“defendant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court on his conviction of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action. Defendant makes several claims on appeal. He argues the court erred in allowing testimony regarding a witness’s identification of defendant at trial, and the court erred in allowing the witness to testify to the degree of certainty of her identification. He also claims the trial court erred in allowing the admission of a photograph of the victim’s face at trial. Finally, defendant asserts error in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as well as plain error in reading the “hammer instruction” to coerce the jury to reach a verdict.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

Related

Foremost Signature Insurance Co. v. Montgomery
266 S.W.3d 868 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 S.W.3d 868, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1428, 2008 WL 4634104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-moctapp-2008.