State v. Edwards

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Edwards

490 S.W.3d 394, 2016 WL 2994558, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 518

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 24, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103291

StatusPublished

This text of 490 S.W.3d 394 (State v. Edwards) 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. Edwards, 490 S.W.3d 394, 2016 WL 2994558, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 518 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stevenson Edwards (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction after a jury trial of one count of domestic assault in the third degree for attempting to cause physical injury to A.H. Defendant challenges the admission of pri- or bad acts evidence and claims a juror was unfairly influenced. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stevenson Edwards (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction after a jury trial of one count of domestic assault in the third degree for attempting to cause physical injury to A.H. Defendant challenges the admission of pri- or bad acts evidence and claims a juror was unfairly influenced. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 S.W.3d 394, 2016 WL 2994558, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-edwards-moctapp-2016.