State v. Slaughter

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Slaughter

139 S.W.3d 604, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 794, 2004 WL 1191378

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 1, 2004

DocketED 83001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 S.W.3d 604 (State v. Slaughter) 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. Slaughter, 139 S.W.3d 604, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 794, 2004 WL 1191378 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Slaughter (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. In his appeal, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred when it refused to submit *605 two proposed defense instructions on duress. Defendant further contends that the trial court clearly erred and abused its discretion when it denied his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the close of all evidence because there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction for robbery and, likewise, that the State failed to prove the corpus delecti of the charged crimes.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Slaughter (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. In his appeal, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred when it refused to submit *605 two proposed defense instructions on duress. Defendant further contends that the trial court clearly erred and abused its discretion when it denied his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the close of all evidence because there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction for robbery and, likewise, that the State failed to prove the corpus delecti of the charged crimes.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.W.3d 604, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 794, 2004 WL 1191378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-slaughter-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack