Sexton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sexton v. State

248 S.W.3d 625, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 212, 2008 WL 375614

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2008

DocketED 89733

StatusPublished

This text of 248 S.W.3d 625 (Sexton 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

Sexton v. State, 248 S.W.3d 625, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 212, 2008 WL 375614 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert W. Sexton (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of one count of assault in the third degree. Defendant argues the trial court erred in granting two of the state’s motions in li-mine, the court erred in allowing John Gamache (“victim”) and a police officer to testify concerning victim’s initial statement to the police, the court erred in refusing to allow evidence concerning victim’s mental health, and the court erred in refusing to allow defendant to impeach victim with prior inconsistent testimony from the preliminary hearing. Defendant also claims the court erred in allowing the state to ask him whether he was represented by counsel for a prior conviction, and in allowing *626 the state to amend its information after the close of the evidence.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert W. Sexton (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of one count of assault in the third degree. Defendant argues the trial court erred in granting two of the state’s motions in li-mine, the court erred in allowing John Gamache (“victim”) and a police officer to testify concerning victim’s initial statement to the police, the court erred in refusing to allow evidence concerning victim’s mental health, and the court erred in refusing to allow defendant to impeach victim with prior inconsistent testimony from the preliminary hearing. Defendant also claims the court erred in allowing the state to ask him whether he was represented by counsel for a prior conviction, and in allowing *626 the state to amend its information after the close of the evidence.

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.W.3d 625, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 212, 2008 WL 375614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sexton-v-state-moctapp-2008.