State v. Shephard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Shephard

478 S.W.3d 548, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1320, 2015 WL 9303120

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102116

StatusPublished

This text of 478 S.W.3d 548 (State v. Shephard) 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. Shephard, 478 S.W.3d 548, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1320, 2015 WL 9303120 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Juan Shepard (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court upon his convictions for two counts of forcible rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 1994.¹ Defendant, argues the trial court plainly erred in: (1) sustaining the State’s-objection to Defendant asking Detective Richard Noble if a crime victim’s contacting police about a suspect’s potential location. should have been reported; and (2) admitting evidence that Defendant’s probation had been revoked and as a result he was incarcerated a year in a federal penitentiary. •

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not plainly err. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential 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 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Juan Shepard (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court upon his convictions for two counts of forcible rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 1994.¹ Defendant, argues the trial court plainly erred in: (1) sustaining the State’s-objection to Defendant asking Detective Richard Noble if a crime victim’s contacting police about a suspect’s potential location. should have been reported; and (2) admitting evidence that Defendant’s probation had been revoked and as a result he was incarcerated a year in a federal penitentiary. •

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not plainly err. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential 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 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 S.W.3d 548, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1320, 2015 WL 9303120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shephard-moctapp-2015.