State v. Ritter

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ritter

45 S.W.3d 905, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 844, 2001 WL 537139

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 2001

DocketNo. ED 78217

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 S.W.3d 905 (State v. Ritter) 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. Ritter, 45 S.W.3d 905, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 844, 2001 WL 537139 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael J. Ritter (“Appellant”) appeals from convictions for murder in the first degree § 565.020, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action § 571.015, RSMo 1994. Appellant raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling Appellant’s motions for judgment of acquittal. Second, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence several autopsy photographs of the victim’s body. We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal. The trial court’s rulings were not erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only, which explains the reasons for this decision. The convictions are affirmed 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.

Michael J. Ritter (“Appellant”) appeals from convictions for murder in the first degree § 565.020, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action § 571.015, RSMo 1994. Appellant raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling Appellant’s motions for judgment of acquittal. Second, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence several autopsy photographs of the victim’s body. We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal. The trial court’s rulings were not erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only, which explains the reasons for this decision. The convictions are affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.W.3d 905, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 844, 2001 WL 537139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ritter-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack