State v. Ray

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ray

284 S.W.3d 624, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 306, 2009 WL 585924

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 2009

DocketWD 68931

StatusPublished

This text of 284 S.W.3d 624 (State v. Ray) 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. Ray, 284 S.W.3d 624, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 306, 2009 WL 585924 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clifton Ray appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, for one count of murder in the first degree (committed in May 1992), pursuant to Section 565.020 RSMo, for which he was sentenced to life in prison without probation or parole. Ray raises three points on appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and admission of certain testimony. This court determines that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony of three witnesses as to the dissipation of semen and the testimony of *625 the medical examiner as to the cause of death. A lengthy opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clifton Ray appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, for one count of murder in the first degree (committed in May 1992), pursuant to Section 565.020 RSMo, for which he was sentenced to life in prison without probation or parole. Ray raises three points on appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and admission of certain testimony. This court determines that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony of three witnesses as to the dissipation of semen and the testimony of *625 the medical examiner as to the cause of death. A lengthy opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.W.3d 624, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 306, 2009 WL 585924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ray-moctapp-2009.