State v. Calmese

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Calmese

948 S.W.2d 161, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 920, 1997 WL 259006

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 1997

DocketNos. 69218, 71443

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 948 S.W.2d 161 (State v. Calmese) 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. Calmese, 948 S.W.2d 161, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 920, 1997 WL 259006 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals following his conviction by a jury of second degree murder in violation of § 565.021 RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant asserts error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, the exclusion of certain testimony, and various rulings concerning the scope of closing arguments. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Defendant’s claims of error are without merit. We further find that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals following his conviction by a jury of second degree murder in violation of § 565.021 RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant asserts error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, the exclusion of certain testimony, and various rulings concerning the scope of closing arguments. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Defendant’s claims of error are without merit. We further find that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

948 S.W.2d 161, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 920, 1997 WL 259006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-calmese-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack