State v. Lottie

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lottie

416 S.W.3d 345, 2013 WL 6664975, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1489

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 2013

DocketNo. ED 99070

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 416 S.W.3d 345 (State v. Lottie) 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. Lottie, 416 S.W.3d 345, 2013 WL 6664975, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1489 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Deangelo Lottie (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of three counts of second-degree assault, one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, one count of attempted robbery in the first degree, one count of second-degree murder, and five counts of armed criminal action. We find that joinder of charges arising out of two separate shootings was proper and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motions to sever the charges. We also find that Appellant has not been prejudiced by the trial court’s refusal to submit a self-defense instruction as to one of the counts submitted to the jury.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Deangelo Lottie (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of three counts of second-degree assault, one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, one count of attempted robbery in the first degree, one count of second-degree murder, and five counts of armed criminal action. We find that joinder of charges arising out of two separate shootings was proper and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motions to sever the charges. We also find that Appellant has not been prejudiced by the trial court’s refusal to submit a self-defense instruction as to one of the counts submitted to the jury.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 S.W.3d 345, 2013 WL 6664975, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lottie-moctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack