State v. Hestand

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hestand

218 S.W.3d 625, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 563, 2007 WL 1053856

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 10, 2007·No. WD 66543·Published

Opinion

*626 Order

PER CURIAM.

After waiving his right to a jury trial, Richard Hestand was convicted of three counts of assault in the first degree under RSMo. section 565.050 (2000), for repeatedly ramming the truck he was driving into another occupied truck. He now appeals that conviction arguing that the court lacked sufficient evidence to find him guilty of the three separate counts of assault and that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte respond to a misstatement of law in closing arguments. Both claims are unpreserved and reviewed under Supreme Court Rule 30.20 for plain error.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

*626 Order

PER CURIAM.

After waiving his right to a jury trial, Richard Hestand was convicted of three counts of assault in the first degree under RSMo. section 565.050 (2000), for repeatedly ramming the truck he was driving into another occupied truck. He now appeals that conviction arguing that the court lacked sufficient evidence to find him guilty of the three separate counts of assault and that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte respond to a misstatement of law in closing arguments. Both claims are unpreserved and reviewed under Supreme Court Rule 30.20 for plain error.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Hestand, 218 S.W.3d 625, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 563, 2007 WL 1053856 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

218 S.W.3d 625 (State v. Hestand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.