State v. Murphy

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Murphy

502 S.W.3d 769, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1191, 2016 WL 6871539

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103519

StatusPublished

This text of 502 S.W.3d 769 (State v. Murphy) 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. Murphy, 502 S.W.3d 769, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1191, 2016 WL 6871539 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant Larell Murphy (“Murphy”) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury trial. Murphy was convicted of first-degree robbery and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Murphy argues that the trial court erred in denying his proffered jury instruction that was modeled after MAI 310.02 (Approved April 2, 2015; Effective Jan. 1, 2016). At the time of trial—August 2015—MAI 310.02 was not mandatory. Because the trial court reasonably refused to give Murphy’s proffered, non-mandatory instruction, no abuse of discretion occurred.

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

Appellant Larell Murphy (“Murphy”) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury trial. Murphy was convicted of first-degree robbery and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Murphy argues that the trial court erred in denying his proffered jury instruction that was modeled after MAI 310.02 (Approved April 2, 2015; Effective Jan. 1, 2016). At the time of trial—August 2015—MAI 310.02 was not mandatory. Because the trial court reasonably refused to give Murphy’s proffered, non-mandatory instruction, no abuse of discretion occurred.

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)

502 S.W.3d 769, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1191, 2016 WL 6871539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murphy-moctapp-2016.