State v. Gurley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gurley

379 S.W.3d 848, 2012 WL 2393687, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 858

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 2012

DocketNo. ED 96646

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 379 S.W.3d 848 (State v. Gurley) 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. Gurley, 379 S.W.3d 848, 2012 WL 2393687, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 858 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Gurley (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered following his jury conviction for murder in the second degree, Section 565.021 RSMo 1994.¹ Defendant contends the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, and (2) submitting to the jury initial aggressor language in the self-defense instruction.

[849]*849We 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.

Robert Gurley (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered following his jury conviction for murder in the second degree, Section 565.021 RSMo 1994.¹ Defendant contends the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, and (2) submitting to the jury initial aggressor language in the self-defense instruction.

[849]*849We 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)

379 S.W.3d 848, 2012 WL 2393687, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gurley-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack