State v. Henke

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Henke

108 S.W.3d 726, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 912, 2003 WL 21383924

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 2003

DocketNo. ED 80798

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 S.W.3d 726 (State v. Henke) 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. Henke, 108 S.W.3d 726, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 912, 2003 WL 21383924 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Henke (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest. Defendant alleges trial court error in submitting the assault of a law enforcement officer charge to the jury because of insufficiency of the evidence and in not sua sponte declaring a mistrial because of certain testimony. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). We also conclude that the trial court did not plainly err in not sua sponte [727]*727declaring a mistrial. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Henke (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest. Defendant alleges trial court error in submitting the assault of a law enforcement officer charge to the jury because of insufficiency of the evidence and in not sua sponte declaring a mistrial because of certain testimony. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). We also conclude that the trial court did not plainly err in not sua sponte [727]*727declaring a mistrial. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.W.3d 726, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 912, 2003 WL 21383924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-henke-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack