State v. Schmidt

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Schmidt

39 S.W.3d 573, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 497, 2001 WL 274784

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 2001

DocketNo. ED 78004

StatusPublished

This text of 39 S.W.3d 573 (State v. Schmidt) 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. Schmidt, 39 S.W.3d 573, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 497, 2001 WL 274784 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Fred H. Schmidt (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of seven counts of rape. Defendant alleges trial court error in (1) allowing counsel for the State to introduce into evidence and to display to the jury during trial an enlarged photograph of the victim and (2) denying his motion for acquittal because the conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting and allowing display of the photograph, State v. Uka, 25 S.W.3d 624, 627 (Mo.App. E.D.2000); and (2) there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. [574]*574We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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.

Fred H. Schmidt (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of seven counts of rape. Defendant alleges trial court error in (1) allowing counsel for the State to introduce into evidence and to display to the jury during trial an enlarged photograph of the victim and (2) denying his motion for acquittal because the conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting and allowing display of the photograph, State v. Uka, 25 S.W.3d 624, 627 (Mo.App. E.D.2000); and (2) there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. [574]*574We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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)

39 S.W.3d 573, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 497, 2001 WL 274784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-schmidt-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack