State v. Cowsert

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cowsert

216 S.W.3d 704, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 441, 2007 WL 738541

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 13, 2007·No. No. ED 87163·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Scott Cowsert (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment of conviction entered upon the jury’s verdict finding Appellant guilty of one count of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and one count of second-degree assault, for which he was sentenced to two consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment. We have re[705] viewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, in that a reasonable juror could find that Appellant acted with criminal negligence in committing the crimes with which he was charged. See Sections 565.024.1(2) and 565.060.1(4) RSMo 2000; State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 408, 405 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Scott Cowsert (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment of conviction entered upon the jury’s verdict finding Appellant guilty of one count of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and one count of second-degree assault, for which he was sentenced to two consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment. We have re[705] viewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, in that a reasonable juror could find that Appellant acted with criminal negligence in committing the crimes with which he was charged. See Sections 565.024.1(2) and 565.060.1(4) RSMo 2000; State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 408, 405 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

State v. Cowsert, 216 S.W.3d 704, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 441, 2007 WL 738541 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

216 S.W.3d 704 (State v. Cowsert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.