State v. Fugate

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Fugate

377 S.W.3d 612, 2012 WL 3939305, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1068

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 4, 2012·No. No. ED 96972·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David R. Fugate appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of second-degree murder and armed criminal action. We find that the trial court did not plainly err in instructing the jury. We also find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting autopsy photographs at trial. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David R. Fugate appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of second-degree murder and armed criminal action. We find that the trial court did not plainly err in instructing the jury. We also find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting autopsy photographs at trial. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Fugate, 377 S.W.3d 612, 2012 WL 3939305, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1068 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

377 S.W.3d 612 (State v. Fugate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.