State v. Henderson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Henderson

503 S.W.3d 306, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1132, 2016 WL 6596071

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103512

StatusPublished

This text of 503 S.W.3d 306 (State v. Henderson) 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. Henderson, 503 S.W.3d 306, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1132, 2016 WL 6596071 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jeremy Henderson (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment upon his conviction after a jury trial on one count of arson in the first degree (in violation of Section 565.040, RSMo 2000) and murder in the second degree (Section 565.021). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth'the reasons for our decision. We affirm 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

Jeremy Henderson (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment upon his conviction after a jury trial on one count of arson in the first degree (in violation of Section 565.040, RSMo 2000) and murder in the second degree (Section 565.021). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth'the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 S.W.3d 306, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1132, 2016 WL 6596071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-henderson-moctapp-2016.