State v. Mahaney

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mahaney

492 S.W.3d 628, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 619, 2016 WL 3418339

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103413

StatusPublished

This text of 492 S.W.3d 628 (State v. Mahaney) 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. Mahaney, 492 S.W.3d 628, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 619, 2016 WL 3418339 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Defendant Alice Mahaney (“Mahaney”) appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County after the trial court found her guilty of the class A misdemeanor of harassment in violation of Section 565.090, RSMo 2000. In her sole point on appeal, Mahaney contends that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence and entering judgment against her because the State’s evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth 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 Alice Mahaney (“Mahaney”) appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County after the trial court found her guilty of the class A misdemeanor of harassment in violation of Section 565.090, RSMo 2000. In her sole point on appeal, Mahaney contends that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence and entering judgment against her because the State’s evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 S.W.3d 628, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 619, 2016 WL 3418339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mahaney-moctapp-2016.