State v. Grissom

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Grissom

527 S.W.3d 856

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104253

StatusPublished

This text of 527 S.W.3d 856 (State v. Grissom) 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. Grissom, 527 S.W.3d 856 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Matthew D. Grissom appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Francois County convicting him of first-degree statutory sodomy, in violation of RSMo § 556.062 (Cumm. Supp. 2011), following a jury trial. On Appeal, Grissom argues the trial court abused its discretion in excluding his brother from testifying at trial as a sanction for failing to timely disclose the witness, as required by Rule 25.05.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Matthew D. Grissom appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Francois County convicting him of first-degree statutory sodomy, in violation of RSMo § 556.062 (Cumm. Supp. 2011), following a jury trial. On Appeal, Grissom argues the trial court abused its discretion in excluding his brother from testifying at trial as a sanction for failing to timely disclose the witness, as required by Rule 25.05.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 S.W.3d 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grissom-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack