State v. Jackson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jackson

131 S.W.3d 892, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 582, 2004 WL 883980

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 27, 2004

DocketNo. WD 62335

StatusPublished

This text of 131 S.W.3d 892 (State v. Jackson) 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. Jackson, 131 S.W.3d 892, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 582, 2004 WL 883980 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Michael Jackson appeals his conviction of Tampering in the First Degree, Section 569.080.1, RSMo 2000, following a jury trial. In his sole point on appeal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence that would permit a jury to conclude that [893]*893he operated the stolen vehicle or that he knew that he was operating the vehicle without the owner’s consent.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b)

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

ORDER

Michael Jackson appeals his conviction of Tampering in the First Degree, Section 569.080.1, RSMo 2000, following a jury trial. In his sole point on appeal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence that would permit a jury to conclude that [893]*893he operated the stolen vehicle or that he knew that he was operating the vehicle without the owner’s consent.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.W.3d 892, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 582, 2004 WL 883980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-moctapp-2004.