State v. Brown

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Brown

44 S.W.3d 439, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 689, 2001 WL 410272

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 2001

DocketNo. ED 77827

StatusPublished

This text of 44 S.W.3d 439 (State v. Brown) 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. Brown, 44 S.W.3d 439, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 689, 2001 WL 410272 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Timothy Brown (“defendant”) appeals from the judgment on his conviction, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal nonsupport under section 568.040 RSMo 1994. The court sentenced defendant to two consecutive nine month jail terms. Defendant claims the trial court erred in refusing to submit the issue of good cause in the jury instructions and also in excluding evidence pertaining to defendant’s payment history.

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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[440]*440The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

Timothy Brown (“defendant”) appeals from the judgment on his conviction, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal nonsupport under section 568.040 RSMo 1994. The court sentenced defendant to two consecutive nine month jail terms. Defendant claims the trial court erred in refusing to submit the issue of good cause in the jury instructions and also in excluding evidence pertaining to defendant’s payment history.

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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[440]*440The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 S.W.3d 439, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 689, 2001 WL 410272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-moctapp-2001.