State v. Huffman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Huffman

113 S.W.3d 238, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1314, 2003 WL 21961816

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2003

DocketED 81895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 S.W.3d 238 (State v. Huffman) 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. Huffman, 113 S.W.3d 238, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1314, 2003 WL 21961816 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Huffman appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the second degree and armed criminal action in violation of sections 565.021 and 571.015 RSMo 2000, respectively. He alleges that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the second degree murder verdict, (2) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the striking of a venireperson, (3) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the state’s closing argument, and (4) the trial court erred in overruling his request for a mistrial after the state objected during his closing argument. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Darrell Huffman appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the second degree and armed criminal action in violation of sections 565.021 and 571.015 RSMo 2000, respectively. He alleges that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the second degree murder verdict, (2) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the striking of a venireperson, (3) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the state’s closing argument, and (4) the trial court erred in overruling his request for a mistrial after the state objected during his closing argument. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.W.3d 238, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1314, 2003 WL 21961816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-huffman-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack