State v. Graham

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Graham

284 S.W.3d 783, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 779, 2009 WL 1590906

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 9, 2009

DocketED 91524

StatusPublished

This text of 284 S.W.3d 783 (State v. Graham) 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. Graham, 284 S.W.3d 783, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 779, 2009 WL 1590906 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Talmadge Graham (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of one count of forcible rape. Defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, the trial court erred in allowing testimony from two police officers, and the trial court erred in denying his request for new trial based upon allegations of juror misconduct during deliberations.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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.

Talmadge Graham (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of one count of forcible rape. Defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, the trial court erred in allowing testimony from two police officers, and the trial court erred in denying his request for new trial based upon allegations of juror misconduct during deliberations.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.W.3d 783, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 779, 2009 WL 1590906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-graham-moctapp-2009.