State v. Markle

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Markle

234 S.W.3d 451, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 990, 2007 WL 1859075

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 2007

DocketED 88037

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 S.W.3d 451 (State v. Markle) 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. Markle, 234 S.W.3d 451, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 990, 2007 WL 1859075 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*452 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Markle (“Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of domestic assault in the second degree, Section 565.073, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion in allowing the State, during the penalty phase of Defendant’s trial, to elicit victim impact evidence from the aunt of another victim of assault which Defendant was charged with committing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

*452 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Markle (“Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of domestic assault in the second degree, Section 565.073, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion in allowing the State, during the penalty phase of Defendant’s trial, to elicit victim impact evidence from the aunt of another victim of assault which Defendant was charged with committing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 S.W.3d 451, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 990, 2007 WL 1859075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-markle-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack