State v. Hilliard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hilliard

414 S.W.3d 576, 2013 WL 5379664, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1106

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 24, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98698

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 414 S.W.3d 576 (State v. Hilliard) 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. Hilliard, 414 S.W.3d 576, 2013 WL 5379664, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1106 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Hilliard (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of first-degree statutory rape, Section 566.032, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2006.¹ Defendant argues the trial court erred: (1) in sustaining the State’s objection to the admission of Defendant’s Exhibit A; and (2) in overruling defense counsel’s objection to investigator Karen [577]*577Crocker’s testimony about the means through which trichomonas vaginalis is transmitted.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err plainly err or abuse its discretion. 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.

Gregory Hilliard (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of first-degree statutory rape, Section 566.032, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2006.¹ Defendant argues the trial court erred: (1) in sustaining the State’s objection to the admission of Defendant’s Exhibit A; and (2) in overruling defense counsel’s objection to investigator Karen [577]*577Crocker’s testimony about the means through which trichomonas vaginalis is transmitted.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err plainly err or abuse its discretion. 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)

414 S.W.3d 576, 2013 WL 5379664, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hilliard-moctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack