State v. Tate

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Tate

362 S.W.3d 484, 2012 WL 941406, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 356

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

DocketED 96489

StatusPublished

This text of 362 S.W.3d 484 (State v. Tate) 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. Tate, 362 S.W.3d 484, 2012 WL 941406, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 356 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Deangelo Tate appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of second-degree murder and armed criminal action. We find that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Tate’s earlier acts, and in its submission of jury instructions.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Deangelo Tate appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of second-degree murder and armed criminal action. We find that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Tate’s earlier acts, and in its submission of jury instructions.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 S.W.3d 484, 2012 WL 941406, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tate-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack