State v. Salsman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Salsman

247 S.W.3d 104, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 320, 2008 WL 638106

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

DocketED 87171

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 S.W.3d 104 (State v. Salsman) 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. Salsman, 247 S.W.3d 104, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 320, 2008 WL 638106 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*105 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Heather Salsman (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon her conviction of one count of a Class A misdemeanor of assault in the third degree, Section 565.070, RSMo 2000. Defendant asserts the trial court erred in entering judgment upon her conviction as the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

*105 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Heather Salsman (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon her conviction of one count of a Class A misdemeanor of assault in the third degree, Section 565.070, RSMo 2000. Defendant asserts the trial court erred in entering judgment upon her conviction as the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.W.3d 104, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 320, 2008 WL 638106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-salsman-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack