State v. McGuire

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McGuire

370 S.W.3d 891, 2012 WL 1680111, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 649

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 15, 2012

DocketNo. ED 96750

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 370 S.W.3d 891 (State v. McGuire) 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. McGuire, 370 S.W.3d 891, 2012 WL 1680111, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brandon C. McGuire appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, first-degree assault, forcible rape, kidnapping, and two counts of forcible sodomy. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying McGuire’s motion to sever the counts alleging crimes against K.J. from the counts alleging crimes against H.T. We also find that the trial court did not plainly err in sustaining the State’s objection during McGuire’s cross-examination of Officer Heather Sabin. Finally, we find that the trial court did not plainly err in failing to remediate the effect of the State’s closing argument.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brandon C. McGuire appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, first-degree assault, forcible rape, kidnapping, and two counts of forcible sodomy. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying McGuire’s motion to sever the counts alleging crimes against K.J. from the counts alleging crimes against H.T. We also find that the trial court did not plainly err in sustaining the State’s objection during McGuire’s cross-examination of Officer Heather Sabin. Finally, we find that the trial court did not plainly err in failing to remediate the effect of the State’s closing argument.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 S.W.3d 891, 2012 WL 1680111, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcguire-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack