State v. Handson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Handson

526 S.W.3d 351, 2017 WL 3480726, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 778

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 15, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104573

StatusPublished

This text of 526 S.W.3d 351 (State v. Handson) 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. Handson, 526 S.W.3d 351, 2017 WL 3480726, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 778 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ryan Handson (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, following a jury trial, convicting him of one count, of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and one of count of first-degree burglary. In his sole point on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it Overruled his objection to the 'admission of autopsy photos of his victims. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended' opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ryan Handson (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, following a jury trial, convicting him of one count, of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and one of count of first-degree burglary. In his sole point on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it Overruled his objection to the 'admission of autopsy photos of his victims. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended' opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 S.W.3d 351, 2017 WL 3480726, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-handson-moctapp-2017.