State v. Long

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Long

504 S.W.2d 323, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1369

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 1973

DocketNo. 35040

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 504 S.W.2d 323 (State v. Long) 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. Long, 504 S.W.2d 323, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1369 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

McMILLIAN, Judge.

The defendant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated, second offense, by a jury and sentenced in accordance with the verdict to thirty days imprisonment, in the Circuit Court of Warren County, George P. Adams, Judge.

The only issue raised on appeal is the court’s failure to define “intoxicated condition” in the instructions to the jury, and also the failure of the statute, § 564.440, V.A.M.S., to define it. The lack of definition is not error, since any juror would readily understand what was meant by a charge of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition; to attempt to define it would tend to confuse rather than clarify the issues. State v. Johnson, 55 S.W.2d 967, 968 (Mo.1932); State v. Weston, 202 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo.1947). Moreover, an extended opinion would be of no precedential value.

Accordingly, finding no error of law, we affirm, pursuant to Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M. R.

CLEMENS, P. J. and GUNN, J., concur.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

McMILLIAN, Judge.

The defendant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated, second offense, by a jury and sentenced in accordance with the verdict to thirty days imprisonment, in the Circuit Court of Warren County, George P. Adams, Judge.

The only issue raised on appeal is the court’s failure to define “intoxicated condition” in the instructions to the jury, and also the failure of the statute, § 564.440, V.A.M.S., to define it. The lack of definition is not error, since any juror would readily understand what was meant by a charge of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition; to attempt to define it would tend to confuse rather than clarify the issues. State v. Johnson, 55 S.W.2d 967, 968 (Mo.1932); State v. Weston, 202 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo.1947). Moreover, an extended opinion would be of no precedential value.

Accordingly, finding no error of law, we affirm, pursuant to Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M. R.

CLEMENS, P. J. and GUNN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 S.W.2d 323, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-long-moctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack