State v. McEntire

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McEntire

157 S.W.3d 340, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 651, 2005 WL 406166

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

DocketED 84408

StatusPublished

This text of 157 S.W.3d 340 (State v. McEntire) 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. McEntire, 157 S.W.3d 340, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 651, 2005 WL 406166 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jason McEntire (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Madison County upon his conviction by a jury of first degree assault. In his appeal, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in: (1) overruling his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the injury to the victim created a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of any part of the body;” and (2) permitting a doctor to testify that the victim’s injury was “serious” because the doctor’s testimony invaded the province of the jury.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm 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.

Jason McEntire (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Madison County upon his conviction by a jury of first degree assault. In his appeal, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in: (1) overruling his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the injury to the victim created a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of any part of the body;” and (2) permitting a doctor to testify that the victim’s injury was “serious” because the doctor’s testimony invaded the province of the jury.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 340, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 651, 2005 WL 406166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcentire-moctapp-2005.