State v. Conklin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Conklin

980 S.W.2d 129, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1818, 1998 WL 726067

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 20, 1998

DocketNo. 72805

StatusPublished

This text of 980 S.W.2d 129 (State v. Conklin) 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. Conklin, 980 S.W.2d 129, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1818, 1998 WL 726067 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

KAROHL, Judge.

Defendant appeals conviction and sentence on charge of tampering with a judicial officer. Section 565.084 RSMo 1994. She was a co-defendant in the trial we reviewed in State v. Cella, et. al., 976 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.App.E.D.1998).

Defendant presents four arguments to support a new trial. One of her points is the trial court erred in not recusing himself pursuant to a timely Rule 32.07 motion. The relevant facts on this issue are identical with those considered in Celia. We adopt the conclusions and holding of that opinion.

We reverse and remand for a new trial before another judge.

ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., C.J. and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge, concur.

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