State v. Ewing

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ewing

318 S.W.3d 203, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 765, 2010 WL 2284211

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 2010

DocketED 93355

StatusPublished

This text of 318 S.W.3d 203 (State v. Ewing) 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. Ewing, 318 S.W.3d 203, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 765, 2010 WL 2284211 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Byron Ewing appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree statutory rape, first-degree child molestation, and sexual misconduct involving a child. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial and in controlling closing argument. See State v. Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693, 703 (Mo.banc 2007), and State v. Hamilton, 847 S.W.2d 198, 199 (Mo.App. E.D.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.

Byron Ewing appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree statutory rape, first-degree child molestation, and sexual misconduct involving a child. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial and in controlling closing argument. See State v. Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693, 703 (Mo.banc 2007), and State v. Hamilton, 847 S.W.2d 198, 199 (Mo.App. E.D.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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

318 S.W.3d 203, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 765, 2010 WL 2284211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ewing-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack