State v. Meador

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Meador

204 S.W.3d 690, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1597, 2006 WL 3069519

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 31, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86516

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 S.W.3d 690 (State v. Meador) 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. Meador, 204 S.W.3d 690, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1597, 2006 WL 3069519 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bill Meador (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury for involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, Section 565.024.1(2), RSMo 2000, and assault in the second degree, Section 565.060, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to two terms of fifteen-years’ imprisonment to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in (1) failing to grant Defendant a new trial because the State elicited testimony regarding Defendant’s failure to give a statement to the investigating officer, (2) failing to grant Defendant a new [691]*691trial because the State offered evidence of other uncharged crimes, and (3) admitting the results of Defendant’s blood test. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting 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.

Bill Meador (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury for involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, Section 565.024.1(2), RSMo 2000, and assault in the second degree, Section 565.060, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to two terms of fifteen-years’ imprisonment to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in (1) failing to grant Defendant a new trial because the State elicited testimony regarding Defendant’s failure to give a statement to the investigating officer, (2) failing to grant Defendant a new [691]*691trial because the State offered evidence of other uncharged crimes, and (3) admitting the results of Defendant’s blood test. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 S.W.3d 690, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1597, 2006 WL 3069519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-meador-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack