State v. Marchand

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Marchand

534 S.W.3d 920

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 5, 2017

DocketWD 79856

StatusPublished

This text of 534 S.W.3d 920 (State v. Marchand) 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. Marchand, 534 S.W.3d 920 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Per Curiam:

William Marchand (“Marchand”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County, following a trial by jury, convicting him of one count of first-degree statutory sodomy and one count of first-degree child molestation. Marchand was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment on each count with the terms to run consecutively for a total sentence of imprisonment of thirty years. In his sole point on appeal, Marchand argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence two brief video clips that Marchand claims the State had failed to produce in discovery prior to trial. We affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been-provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

Per Curiam:

William Marchand (“Marchand”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County, following a trial by jury, convicting him of one count of first-degree statutory sodomy and one count of first-degree child molestation. Marchand was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment on each count with the terms to run consecutively for a total sentence of imprisonment of thirty years. In his sole point on appeal, Marchand argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence two brief video clips that Marchand claims the State had failed to produce in discovery prior to trial. We affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been-provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 S.W.3d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-marchand-moctapp-2017.