State v. Baker

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Baker

172 S.W.3d 505, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1964, 2005 WL 2416628

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 27, 2005

DocketNo. ED 85000

StatusPublished

This text of 172 S.W.3d 505 (State v. Baker) 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. Baker, 172 S.W.3d 505, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1964, 2005 WL 2416628 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Barry K. Baker (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction in that the evidence did not [506]*506show deliberation. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the evidence was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant deliberated before shooting the victim. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Barry K. Baker (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction in that the evidence did not [506]*506show deliberation. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the evidence was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant deliberated before shooting the victim. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.W.3d 505, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1964, 2005 WL 2416628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baker-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack