State v. Spencer

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Spencer

235 S.W.3d 593, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1417, 2007 WL 2993556

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 2007

DocketED 88922

StatusPublished

This text of 235 S.W.3d 593 (State v. Spencer) 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. Spencer, 235 S.W.3d 593, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1417, 2007 WL 2993556 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harold S. Spencer (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for domestic assault in the second degree, Section 565.073, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to twelve years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court plainly erred in failing to (1) sua sponte instruct the jury on self-defense, (2) sua sponte instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of domestic assault in the third degree, (3) sua sponte instruct the jury to disregard the State’s improper argument regarding a prior conviction, and (4) sua sponte instruct the jury to disregard the State’s improper argument that the victim’s injuries were consistent with choking.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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.

Harold S. Spencer (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for domestic assault in the second degree, Section 565.073, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to twelve years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court plainly erred in failing to (1) sua sponte instruct the jury on self-defense, (2) sua sponte instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of domestic assault in the third degree, (3) sua sponte instruct the jury to disregard the State’s improper argument regarding a prior conviction, and (4) sua sponte instruct the jury to disregard the State’s improper argument that the victim’s injuries were consistent with choking.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 S.W.3d 593, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1417, 2007 WL 2993556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-spencer-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack