State v. Pogue

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Pogue

299 S.W.3d 342, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1845, 2009 WL 5124588

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 29, 2009

DocketED 92020

StatusPublished

This text of 299 S.W.3d 342 (State v. Pogue) 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. Pogue, 299 S.W.3d 342, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1845, 2009 WL 5124588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Pogue (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County convicting him of forcible rape, forcible sodomy, second-degree statutory sodomy, two counts of first-degree statutory rape, and first-degree statutory sodomy. Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to disclose the victims’ adoption records to Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the victims’ adoption records to defendants. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Richard Pogue (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County convicting him of forcible rape, forcible sodomy, second-degree statutory sodomy, two counts of first-degree statutory rape, and first-degree statutory sodomy. Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to disclose the victims’ adoption records to Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the victims’ adoption records to defendants. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 S.W.3d 342, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1845, 2009 WL 5124588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pogue-moctapp-2009.