State v. Bruinsma

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bruinsma

229 S.W.3d 269, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 894, 2007 WL 1752828

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 19, 2007

DocketWD 66890

StatusPublished

This text of 229 S.W.3d 269 (State v. Bruinsma) 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. Bruinsma, 229 S.W.3d 269, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 894, 2007 WL 1752828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Bruinsma appeals his conviction, after a jury trial for assault in the third degree pursuant to Section 565.070.1(5) RSMo 2000 for which he was sentenced to fifteen days in jail. Bruinsma challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, admission of certain evidence, and the trial court’s denial of his motion in limine to exclude the State’s evidence for violation of a local discovery rule. A review of the record demonstrates sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find Bruinsma guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of assault in the third degree. Further, Bruinsma fails to demonstrate prejudice from the admission of evidence not relevant to his conviction. Finally, Bruinsma’s defense was not prejudiced by any failure of the State to comply with local discovery rules. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Bruinsma appeals his conviction, after a jury trial for assault in the third degree pursuant to Section 565.070.1(5) RSMo 2000 for which he was sentenced to fifteen days in jail. Bruinsma challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, admission of certain evidence, and the trial court’s denial of his motion in limine to exclude the State’s evidence for violation of a local discovery rule. A review of the record demonstrates sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find Bruinsma guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of assault in the third degree. Further, Bruinsma fails to demonstrate prejudice from the admission of evidence not relevant to his conviction. Finally, Bruinsma’s defense was not prejudiced by any failure of the State to comply with local discovery rules. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.W.3d 269, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 894, 2007 WL 1752828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bruinsma-moctapp-2007.