State v. Clunie

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Clunie

548 S.W.3d 919

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 2018

DocketWD 80471

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 548 S.W.3d 919 (State v. Clunie) 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. Clunie, 548 S.W.3d 919 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Pettis County, Appellant Travis Clunie was convicted of one count of sodomy in the first degree in violation of § 566.060, RSMo, for which he was sentenced to a thirty-year term of imprisonment. Clunie appeals, raising two arguments. First, Clunie argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a continuance of his trial. Second, he argues that the court erred in excluding evidence that he informed the law enforcement officer who initially interrogated him that he suffered from Asperger syndrome ; Clunie contends that this condition could serve to explain why he failed to recognize that the victim did not consent to his sexual acts. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Pettis County, Appellant Travis Clunie was convicted of one count of sodomy in the first degree in violation of § 566.060, RSMo, for which he was sentenced to a thirty-year term of imprisonment. Clunie appeals, raising two arguments. First, Clunie argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a continuance of his trial. Second, he argues that the court erred in excluding evidence that he informed the law enforcement officer who initially interrogated him that he suffered from Asperger syndrome ; Clunie contends that this condition could serve to explain why he failed to recognize that the victim did not consent to his sexual acts. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 S.W.3d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clunie-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack