King v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

King v. State

301 S.W.3d 591, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 88, 2010 WL 346258

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 2, 2010·No. WD 69903·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Matthew King appeals the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial committing him to the custody of the Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator. He claims that the trial court erred in failing to submit his offered Instruction No. G to the jury. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Matthew King appeals the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial committing him to the custody of the Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator. He claims that the trial court erred in failing to submit his offered Instruction No. G to the jury. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

King v. State, 301 S.W.3d 591, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 88, 2010 WL 346258 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

301 S.W.3d 591 (King v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related