State v. Max

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Max

510 S.W.3d 359, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 390, 2017 WL 410235

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 31, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103428

StatusPublished

This text of 510 S.W.3d 359 (State v. Max) 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. Max, 510 S.W.3d 359, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 390, 2017 WL 410235 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brendan W. Max appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for two counts of child molestation in the first degree. Finding no plain error with respect to the challenged trial testimony from three witnesses and no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of an additional statement, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, [360]*360setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Brendan W. Max appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for two counts of child molestation in the first degree. Finding no plain error with respect to the challenged trial testimony from three witnesses and no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of an additional statement, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, [360]*360setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 S.W.3d 359, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 390, 2017 WL 410235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-max-moctapp-2017.