State v. Frisella

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Frisella

344 S.W.3d 231, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 589, 2011 WL 1532017

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 2011

DocketED 95157

StatusPublished

This text of 344 S.W.3d 231 (State v. Frisella) 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. Frisella, 344 S.W.3d 231, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 589, 2011 WL 1532017 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Frisella (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court upon his conviction by a jury of one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 1990 1 *232 , and two counts of attempted forcible sodomy, Section 566.060. Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence: (1) as to counts II, IV, and VI because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed forcible rape and attempt to commit forcible sodomy in that the evidence was insufficient to show Victim suffered a serious physical injury; and (2) as to count VI because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the crime of attempted forcible sodomy in that the evidence was insufficient to show there was a “substantial step” taken toward the commission of forcible sodomy.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo 1990.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Frisella (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court upon his conviction by a jury of one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 1990 1 *232 , and two counts of attempted forcible sodomy, Section 566.060. Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence: (1) as to counts II, IV, and VI because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed forcible rape and attempt to commit forcible sodomy in that the evidence was insufficient to show Victim suffered a serious physical injury; and (2) as to count VI because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the crime of attempted forcible sodomy in that the evidence was insufficient to show there was a “substantial step” taken toward the commission of forcible sodomy.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo 1990.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 S.W.3d 231, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 589, 2011 WL 1532017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frisella-moctapp-2011.