State v. Ball

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ball

357 S.W.3d 286, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 85, 2012 WL 215549

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 2012

DocketED 96284

StatusPublished

This text of 357 S.W.3d 286 (State v. Ball) 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. Ball, 357 S.W.3d 286, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 85, 2012 WL 215549 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Ball (Appellant) appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable Thomas J. Frawley presiding. Appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of second-degree assault. The court sentenced Appellant to four years incarceration.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to testimony by the nurse practitioner who treated the victim that the victim’s injuries were consistent with being hit, kicked, and punched. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Ball (Appellant) appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable Thomas J. Frawley presiding. Appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of second-degree assault. The court sentenced Appellant to four years incarceration.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to testimony by the nurse practitioner who treated the victim that the victim’s injuries were consistent with being hit, kicked, and punched. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 S.W.3d 286, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 85, 2012 WL 215549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ball-moctapp-2012.