State v. Adams

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Adams

333 S.W.3d 538, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 345, 2011 WL 900311

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

DocketED 94606

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 333 S.W.3d 538 (State v. Adams) 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

State v. Adams, 333 S.W.3d 538, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 345, 2011 WL 900311 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Scott Adams (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered after a bench trial convicting him of one count of second-degree assault, a felony, (“Count I”) and two counts of third-degree assault, misdemeanors (“Counts II and III”). Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal and imposed judgment on Count III because there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support a finding that J.A. (“Victim”) found Defendant’s conduct “offensive” under the word’s plain meaning.

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.

Scott Adams (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered after a bench trial convicting him of one count of second-degree assault, a felony, (“Count I”) and two counts of third-degree assault, misdemeanors (“Counts II and III”). Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal and imposed judgment on Count III because there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support a finding that J.A. (“Victim”) found Defendant’s conduct “offensive” under the word’s plain meaning.

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)

333 S.W.3d 538, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 345, 2011 WL 900311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-adams-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack