State v. Maynard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Maynard

477 S.W.3d 183, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2015 WL 7740595

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 1, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102421

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 183 (State v. Maynard) 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. Maynard, 477 S.W.3d 183, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2015 WL 7740595 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER■

PER CURIAM

Joshua Maynard (“Maynard”) appeals the judgment of the trial court entered following a jury verdict convicting him of attempt to manufacture a controlled substance (Count I), first-degree arson (Count II), and two counts of felony murder (Counts III and IV). Maynard raises two points on appeal. Maynard first contests the sufficiency of the evidence for his first-degree arson conviction. Because his two felony-murder convictions were predicated upon his arson conviction, Maynard also contests the felony-murder convictions. In his second point, Maynard contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that he sold fake methamphetamine (“meth?) at a bar. .Because the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to convict Maynard of first-degree arson (and thus, also the two felony-murder counts), the trial court did not err in denying Maynard’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Because Maynard cannot show prejudice resulting from the admission of evidence that he sold fake meth, we will not reverse the trial court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the -trial court 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

ORDER■

PER CURIAM

Joshua Maynard (“Maynard”) appeals the judgment of the trial court entered following a jury verdict convicting him of attempt to manufacture a controlled substance (Count I), first-degree arson (Count II), and two counts of felony murder (Counts III and IV). Maynard raises two points on appeal. Maynard first contests the sufficiency of the evidence for his first-degree arson conviction. Because his two felony-murder convictions were predicated upon his arson conviction, Maynard also contests the felony-murder convictions. In his second point, Maynard contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that he sold fake methamphetamine (“meth?) at a bar. .Because the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to convict Maynard of first-degree arson (and thus, also the two felony-murder counts), the trial court did not err in denying Maynard’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Because Maynard cannot show prejudice resulting from the admission of evidence that he sold fake meth, we will not reverse the trial court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the -trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.W.3d 183, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2015 WL 7740595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-maynard-moctapp-2015.