State v. Bone

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bone

168 S.W.3d 554, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1792, 2005 WL 1018072

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 2005

DocketNo. ED 83723

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 S.W.3d 554 (State v. Bone) 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. Bone, 168 S.W.3d 554, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1792, 2005 WL 1018072 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen G. Bone (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree, Section 565.082 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant raises four allegations of error. He claims the trial court erred in: admitting evidence that he refused to submit to testing for blood alcohol content; admitting testimony he failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test; allowing the arresting officer to testify regarding each of the persons he arrested after administration of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test; and imposing his fifteen year sentence.

[555]*555We 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.

Stephen G. Bone (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree, Section 565.082 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant raises four allegations of error. He claims the trial court erred in: admitting evidence that he refused to submit to testing for blood alcohol content; admitting testimony he failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test; allowing the arresting officer to testify regarding each of the persons he arrested after administration of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test; and imposing his fifteen year sentence.

[555]*555We 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)

168 S.W.3d 554, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1792, 2005 WL 1018072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bone-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack