State v. Nappier

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Nappier

480 S.W.3d 419, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 23, 2016 WL 211941

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 19, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102428

StatusPublished

This text of 480 S.W.3d 419 (State v. Nappier) 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. Nappier, 480 S.W.3d 419, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 23, 2016 WL 211941 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

A jury convicted Donald Richard Nappier (“Nappier”) of one count of first>degree assault, a class A felony; one count of first-degree assault, a class B felony; two associated counts of armed criminal-action; and one count of driving while intoxicated arising out of an incident in which Nappier, while- heavily intoxicated, struck Tasha Hardeastle and Tim Briggs with’ his pickup truck, seriously injuring Hardeastle. On appeal, Nappier challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his convictions for first-degree assault, which, if successful, would render his convictions for the associated counts of armed criminal action erroneous. Specifically, Nappier contends that there was insufficient evidence that he knowingly attempted to cause serious physical injury to Hardeastle and Briggs by hitting them with his truck. Because we find that there was sufficient evidence, we affirm.

The evidence in support, of the jury’s verdict is sufficient, An extended opinion would have no 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.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

A jury convicted Donald Richard Nappier (“Nappier”) of one count of first>degree assault, a class A felony; one count of first-degree assault, a class B felony; two associated counts of armed criminal-action; and one count of driving while intoxicated arising out of an incident in which Nappier, while- heavily intoxicated, struck Tasha Hardeastle and Tim Briggs with’ his pickup truck, seriously injuring Hardeastle. On appeal, Nappier challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his convictions for first-degree assault, which, if successful, would render his convictions for the associated counts of armed criminal action erroneous. Specifically, Nappier contends that there was insufficient evidence that he knowingly attempted to cause serious physical injury to Hardeastle and Briggs by hitting them with his truck. Because we find that there was sufficient evidence, we affirm.

The evidence in support, of the jury’s verdict is sufficient, An extended opinion would have no 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 S.W.3d 419, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 23, 2016 WL 211941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nappier-moctapp-2016.