State v. Shaw

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Shaw

578 S.W.3d 823

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 5, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106019

StatusPublished

This text of 578 S.W.3d 823 (State v. Shaw) 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. Shaw, 578 S.W.3d 823 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Adrian Darcy Shaw ("Defendant") was convicted by jury of statutory sodomy in the first degree. The trial court conducted a hearing, prior to trial, outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of out-of-court statements by a child declarant regarding the alleged sexual offenses. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant alleges the trial court erred in allowing four witnesses to testify at trial to out-of-court statements by the alleged child victim because the time, content and circumstances of the statements did not provide sufficient indicia of reliability as required by statute. We find no error and affirm.

*824An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) Mo.R.Crim. P. (2019).

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

PER CURIAM

Adrian Darcy Shaw ("Defendant") was convicted by jury of statutory sodomy in the first degree. The trial court conducted a hearing, prior to trial, outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of out-of-court statements by a child declarant regarding the alleged sexual offenses. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant alleges the trial court erred in allowing four witnesses to testify at trial to out-of-court statements by the alleged child victim because the time, content and circumstances of the statements did not provide sufficient indicia of reliability as required by statute. We find no error and affirm.

*824An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) Mo.R.Crim. P. (2019).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 S.W.3d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shaw-moctapp-2019.