State v. Ortiz

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ortiz

472 S.W.3d 238, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1031, 2015 WL 5823297

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 2015

DocketWD 77491

StatusPublished

This text of 472 S.W.3d 238 (State v. Ortiz) 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. Ortiz, 472 S.W.3d 238, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1031, 2015 WL 5823297 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Gustavo Ortiz appeals his conviction of second-degree murder following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Ortiz alleges that he is entitled to a new trial because the circuit court erroneously admitted evidence: of his prior abusive relationship with the State’s principal witness; of the witness’ family’s disapproval of her relationship with Ortiz; and of the fact that Ortiz had been released from jail shortly before the murder. Ortiz also argues that the trial court committed plain error by permitting the State in closing argument to rely on the evidence of his abusive relationship with the State’s principal witness. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Gustavo Ortiz appeals his conviction of second-degree murder following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Ortiz alleges that he is entitled to a new trial because the circuit court erroneously admitted evidence: of his prior abusive relationship with the State’s principal witness; of the witness’ family’s disapproval of her relationship with Ortiz; and of the fact that Ortiz had been released from jail shortly before the murder. Ortiz also argues that the trial court committed plain error by permitting the State in closing argument to rely on the evidence of his abusive relationship with the State’s principal witness. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 S.W.3d 238, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1031, 2015 WL 5823297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ortiz-moctapp-2015.