State v. Jackson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jackson

229 S.W.3d 125, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, 2007 WL 1186553

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 2007

DocketWD 66008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 229 S.W.3d 125 (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, 229 S.W.3d 125, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, 2007 WL 1186553 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Anthony L. Jackson appeals a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Jackson contends first that the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s oral motion in limine precluding him from offering testimony that the reddish substance in which the fingerprint was found at his apartment was blood. Second, Jackson argues that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal and for submitting to the jury the verdict directing instruction for murder in the first degree because there was insufficient evidence of “deliberation.” Finally, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling his Miranda objection to the admission of evidence regarding his statements to law enforcement officers while in custody. Having reviewed the record on appeal and finding no error, this court affirms the judgment. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

Anthony L. Jackson appeals a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Jackson contends first that the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s oral motion in limine precluding him from offering testimony that the reddish substance in which the fingerprint was found at his apartment was blood. Second, Jackson argues that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal and for submitting to the jury the verdict directing instruction for murder in the first degree because there was insufficient evidence of “deliberation.” Finally, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling his Miranda objection to the admission of evidence regarding his statements to law enforcement officers while in custody. Having reviewed the record on appeal and finding no error, this court affirms the judgment. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.W.3d 125, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, 2007 WL 1186553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack