State v. Hancock

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hancock

234 S.W.3d 625, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1355, 2007 WL 2833699

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 2, 2007

DocketED 84195

StatusPublished

This text of 234 S.W.3d 625 (State v. Hancock) 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. Hancock, 234 S.W.3d 625, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1355, 2007 WL 2833699 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Maurice Hancock (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis upon his conviction by a jury of one count of the class A felony of trafficking in the second degree in violation of Section 195.223. Defendant contends the trial court erred by refusing to submit to the jury an instruction for the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance because a basis existed for a rational jury to acquit Defendant of the charged offense of second degree trafficking and convict him of the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No *626 error of law appears. No precedential or jurisprudential purposes would be served by an opinion restating the detailed facts and the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their purposes only explaining the reasons for this order affirming the judgment 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.

Defendant Maurice Hancock (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis upon his conviction by a jury of one count of the class A felony of trafficking in the second degree in violation of Section 195.223. Defendant contends the trial court erred by refusing to submit to the jury an instruction for the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance because a basis existed for a rational jury to acquit Defendant of the charged offense of second degree trafficking and convict him of the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No *626 error of law appears. No precedential or jurisprudential purposes would be served by an opinion restating the detailed facts and the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their purposes only explaining the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 S.W.3d 625, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1355, 2007 WL 2833699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hancock-moctapp-2007.