State v. Hopkins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hopkins

506 S.W.3d 367, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1037, 2016 WL 6081989

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2016

DocketWD 77956

StatusPublished

This text of 506 S.W.3d 367 (State v. Hopkins) 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. Hopkins, 506 S.W.3d 367, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1037, 2016 WL 6081989 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Appellant Arthur Hopkins was convicted of burglary in the first degree in connection with a 2006 home invasion. The State alleged that Hopkins aided and encouraged the two individuals who actually perpetrated the burglary. Hopkins appeals. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminally responsible as an accomplice, and that the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence statements made by one of [368]*368his alleged co-conspirators. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).¹

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Appellant Arthur Hopkins was convicted of burglary in the first degree in connection with a 2006 home invasion. The State alleged that Hopkins aided and encouraged the two individuals who actually perpetrated the burglary. Hopkins appeals. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminally responsible as an accomplice, and that the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence statements made by one of [368]*368his alleged co-conspirators. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 S.W.3d 367, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1037, 2016 WL 6081989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hopkins-moctapp-2016.