State v. Arnold

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Arnold

173 S.W.3d 691, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1507, 2005 WL 2649462

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

DocketED 85475

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 S.W.3d 691 (State v. Arnold) 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. Arnold, 173 S.W.3d 691, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1507, 2005 WL 2649462 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald J. Arnold (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree assault, Section 565.050 RSMo (2000), and armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Defendant was sentenced as a prior offender to concurrent terms of thirty years imprisonment. Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court erred in failing to allow Defendant to question the victim regarding a pending DWI charge as this would have exposed the victim’s bias.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Donald J. Arnold (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree assault, Section 565.050 RSMo (2000), and armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Defendant was sentenced as a prior offender to concurrent terms of thirty years imprisonment. Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court erred in failing to allow Defendant to question the victim regarding a pending DWI charge as this would have exposed the victim’s bias.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.W.3d 691, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1507, 2005 WL 2649462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-arnold-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack