McQuary v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McQuary v. State

288 S.W.3d 831, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1127, 2009 WL 2382370

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 4, 2009

DocketWD 69735

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 S.W.3d 831 (McQuary 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

McQuary v. State, 288 S.W.3d 831, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1127, 2009 WL 2382370 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Larue McQuary appeals the trial court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Mr. McQuary claims that the trial court clearly erred in denying his motion because he did not receive a fair trial due to a juror’s intentional nondisclosures during voir dire. Because a published opinion would have no precedential 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:

Larue McQuary appeals the trial court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Mr. McQuary claims that the trial court clearly erred in denying his motion because he did not receive a fair trial due to a juror’s intentional nondisclosures during voir dire. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 S.W.3d 831, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1127, 2009 WL 2382370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcquary-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack