State v. Alexander

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Alexander

990 S.W.2d 209, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 597, 1999 WL 261550

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 4, 1999

DocketNo. 73020

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 990 S.W.2d 209 (State v. Alexander) 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. Alexander, 990 S.W.2d 209, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 597, 1999 WL 261550 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Alexander (Defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following his jury conviction for first degree murder, section 565.020.1, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, section 571.015, RSMo 1994. In his point on appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence that he had shot Victim once before and had been convicted for that crime.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. [210]*210We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Alexander (Defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following his jury conviction for first degree murder, section 565.020.1, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, section 571.015, RSMo 1994. In his point on appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence that he had shot Victim once before and had been convicted for that crime.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. [210]*210We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

990 S.W.2d 209, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 597, 1999 WL 261550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-alexander-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack