State v. King

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. King

347 S.W.3d 174, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1138, 2011 WL 3807571

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketED 95306

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 347 S.W.3d 174 (State v. King) 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. King, 347 S.W.3d 174, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1138, 2011 WL 3807571 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kelly L. King (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of felony resisting arrest. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence from which a juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the trooper was arresting Defendant for committing the felony of second degree domestic assault in that the trooper had no reasonable basis for believing that Defendant had committed that offense.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 80.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kelly L. King (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of felony resisting arrest. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence from which a juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the trooper was arresting Defendant for committing the felony of second degree domestic assault in that the trooper had no reasonable basis for believing that Defendant had committed that offense.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 80.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 174, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1138, 2011 WL 3807571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-king-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack