State v. Smoot

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smoot

413 S.W.3d 388, 2013 WL 5989285, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 12, 2013·No. No. ED 95499-01·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Smoot appeals from the judgment entered by the trial court upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of forcible rape, section 566.030 RSMo (Cum. Supp.2006), and one count of forcible sodomy, section 566.060 RSMo (Cum.Supp. 2006). Smoot contends the trial court [389] erred in failing to exclude from evidence his statements to the police because they were the product of coercive interrogation, and therefore involuntary.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Smoot appeals from the judgment entered by the trial court upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of forcible rape, section 566.030 RSMo (Cum. Supp.2006), and one count of forcible sodomy, section 566.060 RSMo (Cum.Supp. 2006). Smoot contends the trial court [389] erred in failing to exclude from evidence his statements to the police because they were the product of coercive interrogation, and therefore involuntary.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Smoot, 413 S.W.3d 388, 2013 WL 5989285, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

413 S.W.3d 388 (State v. Smoot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.