State v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smith

460 S.W.3d 466, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 156, 2015 WL 658443

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 2015

DocketWD 76465

StatusPublished

This text of 460 S.W.3d 466 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 460 S.W.3d 466, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 156, 2015 WL 658443 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Marcus Smith was convicted in the Circuit Court of Clay County of second-degree (felony) murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and two counts of armed criminal action. Smith appeals. He argues that the circuit court erred in: simultaneously finding him guilty of both felony murder and unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of the merger doctrine and his right not to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; admitting as an exhibit a firearm which was not used in the offense; and failing to grant his motion for acquittal due to the insufficiency of the evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. 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, Marcus Smith was convicted in the Circuit Court of Clay County of second-degree (felony) murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and two counts of armed criminal action. Smith appeals. He argues that the circuit court erred in: simultaneously finding him guilty of both felony murder and unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of the merger doctrine and his right not to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; admitting as an exhibit a firearm which was not used in the offense; and failing to grant his motion for acquittal due to the insufficiency of the evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 S.W.3d 466, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 156, 2015 WL 658443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-moctapp-2015.