State v. Davis

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Davis

180 S.W.3d 530, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 5, 2006 WL 9578

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 3, 2006

DocketWD 64219

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.W.3d 530 (State v. Davis) 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. Davis, 180 S.W.3d 530, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 5, 2006 WL 9578 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Davis was found guilty by jury verdict of forcible rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 2000; forcible sodomy, Section 566.060; kidnapping, Section 565.110; unlawful use of a weapon, Section 571.030.1(4); and three counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Davis brings two points on appeal. First, Davis appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce DNA evidence. Davis claims that the evidence was secured by an unlawful search and seizure, violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Missouri Constitution. Second, Davis argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for kidnapping and that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal and in accepting the guilty verdict of the jury. Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Davis was found guilty by jury verdict of forcible rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 2000; forcible sodomy, Section 566.060; kidnapping, Section 565.110; unlawful use of a weapon, Section 571.030.1(4); and three counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Davis brings two points on appeal. First, Davis appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce DNA evidence. Davis claims that the evidence was secured by an unlawful search and seizure, violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Missouri Constitution. Second, Davis argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for kidnapping and that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal and in accepting the guilty verdict of the jury. Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W.3d 530, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 5, 2006 WL 9578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-moctapp-2006.