State v. Chambers

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Chambers

490 S.W.3d 798, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 540, 2016 WL 3070703

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103052

StatusPublished

This text of 490 S.W.3d 798 (State v. Chambers) 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. Chambers, 490 S.W.3d 798, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 540, 2016 WL 3070703 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Richard B. Chambers appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction after a jury trial of one count of second-degree rape and one count of third-degree domestic assault. Appellant challenges the admission of a booking video portraying him in an angry and violent state as well as alleged hearsay testimony regarding another officer’s response to a previous domestic disturbance involving Appellant and Victim. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that [799]*799the admission of neither piece of evidence was so prejudicial as to deprive Appellant of a fair trial. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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

Richard B. Chambers appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction after a jury trial of one count of second-degree rape and one count of third-degree domestic assault. Appellant challenges the admission of a booking video portraying him in an angry and violent state as well as alleged hearsay testimony regarding another officer’s response to a previous domestic disturbance involving Appellant and Victim. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that [799]*799the admission of neither piece of evidence was so prejudicial as to deprive Appellant of a fair trial. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 S.W.3d 798, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 540, 2016 WL 3070703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chambers-moctapp-2016.