State v. Gutierrez

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gutierrez

291 S.W.3d 834, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1106, 2009 WL 2341862

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 31, 2009

DocketWD 69495

StatusPublished

This text of 291 S.W.3d 834 (State v. Gutierrez) 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. Gutierrez, 291 S.W.3d 834, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1106, 2009 WL 2341862 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mario Gutierrez appeals the circuit court’s judgment convicting him of two counts of the class B felony of child molestation in the first degree in violation of § 566.067, RSMo 2000. On appeal, Gutierrez challenges the trial court’s limitation of his cross-examination of a witness concerning prior false allegations of sexual abuse by the child-victim, and the prosecution’s reference in closing argument to the fact that Gutierrez had presented no evidence to corroborate his claim that the child-victim had made such prior allegations. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mario Gutierrez appeals the circuit court’s judgment convicting him of two counts of the class B felony of child molestation in the first degree in violation of § 566.067, RSMo 2000. On appeal, Gutierrez challenges the trial court’s limitation of his cross-examination of a witness concerning prior false allegations of sexual abuse by the child-victim, and the prosecution’s reference in closing argument to the fact that Gutierrez had presented no evidence to corroborate his claim that the child-victim had made such prior allegations. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 S.W.3d 834, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1106, 2009 WL 2341862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gutierrez-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack