State v. Bowers

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bowers

341 S.W.3d 810, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 703, 2011 WL 2020758

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 24, 2011

DocketED 95010

StatusPublished

This text of 341 S.W.3d 810 (State v. Bowers) 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. Bowers, 341 S.W.3d 810, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 703, 2011 WL 2020758 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Bowers (Defendant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered after a jury convicted him of resisting arrest and first degree trespass. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the resisting arrest count because the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that: (1) Officer Boyce was arresting Defendant; and (2) Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Officer Boyce was a law enforcement officer and that he was arresting Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to conclude that Officer Boyce was arresting Defendant and that Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Officer Boyce was a law enforcement officer and that he was arresting Defendant. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

William Bowers (Defendant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered after a jury convicted him of resisting arrest and first degree trespass. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the resisting arrest count because the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish that: (1) Officer Boyce was arresting Defendant; and (2) Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Officer Boyce was a law enforcement officer and that he was arresting Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to conclude that Officer Boyce was arresting Defendant and that Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Officer Boyce was a law enforcement officer and that he was arresting Defendant. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 810, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 703, 2011 WL 2020758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bowers-moctapp-2011.