State v. Cutts

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cutts

278 S.W.3d 716, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 700, 2009 WL 792072

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

DocketED 90913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 S.W.3d 716 (State v. Cutts) 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. Cutts, 278 S.W.3d 716, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 700, 2009 WL 792072 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Cutts (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, following a jury trial, convicting him of domestic assault in the first degree. Defendant claims that: (1) the State failed to prove that Defendant caused the victim, Ms. Wright, “serious physical injury”; (2) the trial court submitted a jury instruction that improperly omitted a paragraph required by the MAI-CR; and (3) the trial court denied Defendant his right to a speedy trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the State proffered sufficient evidence proving that Defendant caused Ms. Wright *717 “serious physical injury”, no plain error resulted from the trial court’s submission of an improper jury instruction, and the trial court did not deny Defendant his right to a speedy trial. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Cutts (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, following a jury trial, convicting him of domestic assault in the first degree. Defendant claims that: (1) the State failed to prove that Defendant caused the victim, Ms. Wright, “serious physical injury”; (2) the trial court submitted a jury instruction that improperly omitted a paragraph required by the MAI-CR; and (3) the trial court denied Defendant his right to a speedy trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the State proffered sufficient evidence proving that Defendant caused Ms. Wright *717 “serious physical injury”, no plain error resulted from the trial court’s submission of an improper jury instruction, and the trial court did not deny Defendant his right to a speedy trial. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W.3d 716, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 700, 2009 WL 792072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cutts-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack