State v. Gilleylen

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gilleylen

482 S.W.3d 482, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 155, 2016 WL 720644

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102314

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 482 S.W.3d 482 (State v. Gilleylen) 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. Gilleylen, 482 S.W.3d 482, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 155, 2016 WL 720644 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Quentin Gilleylen (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court upon his conviction for forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, RSMo 2000 ¹ Defendant argues the trial court abused 'its discretion in (1) admitting testimony and' evidence'! of the victim’s statements of penetration during the second Child Advocacy Center (“the CAC”) interview, and (2) in allowing the CAC interviewer, Linda McQuary, to testify that the victim’s progression of disclosure and telling different and inconsistent details on different days was not uncommon and that the interviewer was not surprised by the victim’s progression.

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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Quentin Gilleylen (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court upon his conviction for forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, RSMo 2000 ¹ Defendant argues the trial court abused 'its discretion in (1) admitting testimony and' evidence'! of the victim’s statements of penetration during the second Child Advocacy Center (“the CAC”) interview, and (2) in allowing the CAC interviewer, Linda McQuary, to testify that the victim’s progression of disclosure and telling different and inconsistent details on different days was not uncommon and that the interviewer was not surprised by the victim’s progression.

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 482, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 155, 2016 WL 720644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gilleylen-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack