State v. Beard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Beard

212 S.W.3d 168, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 116, 2007 WL 148791

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 23, 2007

DocketED 86941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 S.W.3d 168 (State v. Beard) 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. Beard, 212 S.W.3d 168, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 116, 2007 WL 148791 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Don Beard (“Appellant”) was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis on charges of Attempted Child Molestation (Count I), Attempt to Commit Victim Tampering (Count II), and Attempt to Commit Witness Tampering (Count III). Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him on Count I, trial court error for failure to sustain his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on Count III, and instructional error. After the trial, the State dismissed Count III, the court entered a judgment of acquittal on Count III, and sentenced Appellant on the remaining two counts. This appeal follows.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Don Beard (“Appellant”) was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis on charges of Attempted Child Molestation (Count I), Attempt to Commit Victim Tampering (Count II), and Attempt to Commit Witness Tampering (Count III). Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him on Count I, trial court error for failure to sustain his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on Count III, and instructional error. After the trial, the State dismissed Count III, the court entered a judgment of acquittal on Count III, and sentenced Appellant on the remaining two counts. This appeal follows.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 S.W.3d 168, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 116, 2007 WL 148791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-beard-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack