State v. Hardy

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hardy

496 S.W.3d 643, 2016 WL 2994581, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 517

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 24, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103029

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 496 S.W.3d 643 (State v. Hardy) 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. Hardy, 496 S.W.3d 643, 2016 WL 2994581, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[644]*644 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant Bryant Hardy (“Hardy”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding Hardy guilty of one count of forcible rape, one count of incest, and four counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree. On appeal, Hardy contends that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in overruling his objection to the testimony of Tramel Dean (“Dean”), Victim’s uncle; (2) abused its discretion in overruling his objection to the testimony of Detective Ryan Barone (“Det. Barone”); and (3) erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because his right to a speedy trial was violated.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

[644]*644 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant Bryant Hardy (“Hardy”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding Hardy guilty of one count of forcible rape, one count of incest, and four counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree. On appeal, Hardy contends that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in overruling his objection to the testimony of Tramel Dean (“Dean”), Victim’s uncle; (2) abused its discretion in overruling his objection to the testimony of Detective Ryan Barone (“Det. Barone”); and (3) erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because his right to a speedy trial was violated.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 S.W.3d 643, 2016 WL 2994581, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hardy-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack