State v. Ray

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ray

354 S.W.3d 256, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1649, 2011 WL 6209374

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

DocketED 95393

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 354 S.W.3d 256 (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, 354 S.W.3d 256, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1649, 2011 WL 6209374 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tina Ray appeals the judgment entered upon a trial court’s verdict convicting her of one count of tampering with physical evidence, a class D felony. We find the trial court did not err in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, *257 provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tina Ray appeals the judgment entered upon a trial court’s verdict convicting her of one count of tampering with physical evidence, a class D felony. We find the trial court did not err in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, *257 provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 S.W.3d 256, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1649, 2011 WL 6209374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ray-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack