State v. Raymond

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Raymond

136 S.W.3d 836, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 862, 2004 WL 1338075

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82653

StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.W.3d 836 (State v. Raymond) 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. Raymond, 136 S.W.3d 836, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 862, 2004 WL 1338075 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven E. Raymond (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction and argues that the trial court erred in failing to rule on a motion, to read a recess instruction to a particular juror, and to take action regarding an alleged sleeping juror and in allowing certain questions and argument by the State at trial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there [837]*837is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). We also find no error in Defendant’s other allegations of error. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven E. Raymond (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction and argues that the trial court erred in failing to rule on a motion, to read a recess instruction to a particular juror, and to take action regarding an alleged sleeping juror and in allowing certain questions and argument by the State at trial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there [837]*837is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). We also find no error in Defendant’s other allegations of error. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.W.3d 836, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 862, 2004 WL 1338075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-raymond-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack