State v. Henley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Henley

266 S.W.3d 344, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1415, 2008 WL 4635165

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

DocketED 89497

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 S.W.3d 344 (State v. Henley) 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. Henley, 266 S.W.3d 344, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1415, 2008 WL 4635165 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Scott Henley (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions, following a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree in violation of Section 569.030, RSMo 2000, and of forcible rape in violation of Section 566.030, RSMo 2000. Defendant raises three points on appeal: (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant of robbery in the second degree; (2) the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial over a witness’ improper statement; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Defendant’s objection during State’s rebuttal penalty argument, where the prosecutor asked the rest of the jury to seek the advice on the legal significance of the evidence, from the two lawyers on the panel.

*345 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Scott Henley (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions, following a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree in violation of Section 569.030, RSMo 2000, and of forcible rape in violation of Section 566.030, RSMo 2000. Defendant raises three points on appeal: (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant of robbery in the second degree; (2) the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial over a witness’ improper statement; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in overruling Defendant’s objection during State’s rebuttal penalty argument, where the prosecutor asked the rest of the jury to seek the advice on the legal significance of the evidence, from the two lawyers on the panel.

*345 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 S.W.3d 344, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1415, 2008 WL 4635165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-henley-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack