State v. Jones

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jones

987 S.W.2d 402, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 50, 1999 WL 16724

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

DocketNo. 73598

StatusPublished

This text of 987 S.W.2d 402 (State v. Jones) 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. Jones, 987 S.W.2d 402, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 50, 1999 WL 16724 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Eugene Jones, Jr., appeals from the judgment entered following his jury convictions for first degree statutory rape, section 566.032, RSMo 1994, first degree statutory sodomy, section 566.062, RSMo 1994, and sodomy of a child less than 14 years old, section 566.060, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1993.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting [403]*403forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Defendant Eugene Jones, Jr., appeals from the judgment entered following his jury convictions for first degree statutory rape, section 566.032, RSMo 1994, first degree statutory sodomy, section 566.062, RSMo 1994, and sodomy of a child less than 14 years old, section 566.060, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1993.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting [403]*403forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

987 S.W.2d 402, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 50, 1999 WL 16724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack