State v. Cato

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cato

485 S.W.3d 392, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 286, 2016 WL 1221662

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102481

StatusPublished

This text of 485 S.W.3d 392 (State v. Cato) 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. Cato, 485 S.W.3d 392, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 286, 2016 WL 1221662 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ralph Cato appeals his convictions of one count of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and three counts of armed criminal action.arising out of an incident in the City of St. Louis on July 16, 2013, in which Cato opened fire on a porch occupied by Kenyatia Eddy, Charles Moorehead, and Jonathon Robinson. Cato contends that the trial court abused its discretion (1) by overruling defense counsel’s objection to the admission of a photograph showing Cato with a gun and (2) by overruling defense counsel’s objection to the State’s closing argument that Cato deliberated by seeking out Robinson and Moorehead. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for' this order pursuant to Rule 30,25.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ralph Cato appeals his convictions of one count of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and three counts of armed criminal action.arising out of an incident in the City of St. Louis on July 16, 2013, in which Cato opened fire on a porch occupied by Kenyatia Eddy, Charles Moorehead, and Jonathon Robinson. Cato contends that the trial court abused its discretion (1) by overruling defense counsel’s objection to the admission of a photograph showing Cato with a gun and (2) by overruling defense counsel’s objection to the State’s closing argument that Cato deliberated by seeking out Robinson and Moorehead. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for' this order pursuant to Rule 30,25.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 S.W.3d 392, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 286, 2016 WL 1221662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cato-moctapp-2016.