State v. Mugler

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mugler

280 S.W.3d 796, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 524, 2009 WL 1058050

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 21, 2009·No. ED 91482·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Mugler (Defendant) appeals the circuit court’s judgment upon his conviction after a bench trial on one count of forgery in violation of 566.034 RSMo 2000. Defendant asserts that the court abused its discretion by denying his request for a Frye hearing and permitting law enforcement officers to conduct and opine on a handwriting comparison.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and we conclude that the trial court did not err. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion. A memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. 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.

Michael Mugler (Defendant) appeals the circuit court’s judgment upon his conviction after a bench trial on one count of forgery in violation of 566.034 RSMo 2000. Defendant asserts that the court abused its discretion by denying his request for a Frye hearing and permitting law enforcement officers to conduct and opine on a handwriting comparison.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and we conclude that the trial court did not err. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion. A memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Mugler, 280 S.W.3d 796, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 524, 2009 WL 1058050 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

280 S.W.3d 796 (State v. Mugler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related