State v. Sickles

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Sickles

305 S.W.3d 504, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 340, 2010 WL 1027430

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 23, 2010

DocketWD 68376

StatusPublished

This text of 305 S.W.3d 504 (State v. Sickles) 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. Sickles, 305 S.W.3d 504, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 340, 2010 WL 1027430 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, Joshua Sickles was convicted of distribution, delivery, or sale of a controlled substance and acquitted of second-degree murder. Sickles contends the circuit court erred in: (1) denying his motions for judgment of acquittal on the second-degree murder charge, and (2) overruling his objection to certain expert testimony. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction.

AFFIRMED. Rule 30.25(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, Joshua Sickles was convicted of distribution, delivery, or sale of a controlled substance and acquitted of second-degree murder. Sickles contends the circuit court erred in: (1) denying his motions for judgment of acquittal on the second-degree murder charge, and (2) overruling his objection to certain expert testimony. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction.

AFFIRMED. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 S.W.3d 504, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 340, 2010 WL 1027430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sickles-moctapp-2010.