State v. Nash

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Nash

174 S.W.3d 78, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1526, 2005 WL 2746547

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

DocketED 85488

StatusPublished

This text of 174 S.W.3d 78 (State v. Nash) 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. Nash, 174 S.W.3d 78, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1526, 2005 WL 2746547 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wilburn Nash (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County upon his conviction by a jury of six counts of child molestation in the first degree and six counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree. In his appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled his trial attorney’s objection to a physician’s testimony that the victim’s behavior during an examination suggested sexual abuse.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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.

Wilburn Nash (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County upon his conviction by a jury of six counts of child molestation in the first degree and six counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree. In his appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled his trial attorney’s objection to a physician’s testimony that the victim’s behavior during an examination suggested sexual abuse.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.W.3d 78, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1526, 2005 WL 2746547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nash-moctapp-2005.