State v. Ballard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ballard

356 S.W.3d 789, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1561, 2011 WL 5864333

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

DocketED 95530

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 356 S.W.3d 789 (State v. Ballard) 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. Ballard, 356 S.W.3d 789, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1561, 2011 WL 5864333 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James H. Ballard appeals the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict convicting him of one count of first-degree statutory sodomy, two counts of first-degree endangering the welfare of a child, one count of second-degree statutory sodomy, and two counts of use of a child in a sexual performance. We find that the trial court did not erroneously deprive Ballard of his right to self-representation, nor did the court err in excluding certain evidence at trial.

*790 An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James H. Ballard appeals the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict convicting him of one count of first-degree statutory sodomy, two counts of first-degree endangering the welfare of a child, one count of second-degree statutory sodomy, and two counts of use of a child in a sexual performance. We find that the trial court did not erroneously deprive Ballard of his right to self-representation, nor did the court err in excluding certain evidence at trial.

*790 An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.W.3d 789, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1561, 2011 WL 5864333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ballard-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack