State v. Martin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Martin

510 S.W.3d 902, 2017 WL 676763

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103718

StatusPublished

This text of 510 S.W.3d 902 (State v. Martin) 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. Martin, 510 S.W.3d 902, 2017 WL 676763 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ricco Martin (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree statutory rape, one count of first-degree statutory sodomy, and one count of first-degree child molestation. In his sole point on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court’s admission of his victim’s out-of-court statements violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b)

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ricco Martin (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree statutory rape, one count of first-degree statutory sodomy, and one count of first-degree child molestation. In his sole point on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court’s admission of his victim’s out-of-court statements violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 S.W.3d 902, 2017 WL 676763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martin-moctapp-2017.