State v. Markle

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Markle

266 S.W.3d 880, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1535, 2008 WL 4700714

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 2008

DocketWD 68258

StatusPublished

This text of 266 S.W.3d 880 (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, 266 S.W.3d 880, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1535, 2008 WL 4700714 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Markle appeals from his conviction in the Circuit Court of Jackson County of one count of class B felony assault in the first degree. In his sole point on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on that count, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knowingly attempted to kill or cause serious injury to the victim. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by sufficient evidence. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Markle appeals from his conviction in the Circuit Court of Jackson County of one count of class B felony assault in the first degree. In his sole point on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on that count, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knowingly attempted to kill or cause serious injury to the victim. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by sufficient evidence. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 S.W.3d 880, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1535, 2008 WL 4700714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-markle-moctapp-2008.