State v. Nolting

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Nolting

706 S.W.2d 601, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 3843

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 1986

DocketNo. 49540

StatusPublished

This text of 706 S.W.2d 601 (State v. Nolting) 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. Nolting, 706 S.W.2d 601, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 3843 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted defendant of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080.1(2), RSMo. 1982. He appeals from the judgment claiming the evidence adduced at trial does not support the verdict in that the state’s witness was unable to identify him in the courtroom. However, the witness positively identified defendant’s photograph admitted in evidence without objections. See State v. Adail, 555 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Mo.App.1977). We have examined the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and find it contains solid, credible evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.

The judgment 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:

A jury convicted defendant of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080.1(2), RSMo. 1982. He appeals from the judgment claiming the evidence adduced at trial does not support the verdict in that the state’s witness was unable to identify him in the courtroom. However, the witness positively identified defendant’s photograph admitted in evidence without objections. See State v. Adail, 555 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Mo.App.1977). We have examined the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and find it contains solid, credible evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 S.W.2d 601, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 3843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nolting-moctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack