State v. Thomas

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Thomas

357 S.W.3d 610, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 116, 2012 WL 273728

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

DocketED 95836

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 357 S.W.3d 610 (State v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 357 S.W.3d 610, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 116, 2012 WL 273728 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eugene Thomas (Defendant) appeals from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis following his conviction for attempted statutory sodomy and sexual misconduct involving a child. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by: (1) giving a jury instruction that did not ensure that the members of the jury unanimously convicted Defendant for the same act; (2) permitting the victim and victim’s mother to testify regarding Defendant’s prior bad acts; and (3) overruling Defendant’s Batson challenge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not abuse its discretion. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Eugene Thomas (Defendant) appeals from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis following his conviction for attempted statutory sodomy and sexual misconduct involving a child. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by: (1) giving a jury instruction that did not ensure that the members of the jury unanimously convicted Defendant for the same act; (2) permitting the victim and victim’s mother to testify regarding Defendant’s prior bad acts; and (3) overruling Defendant’s Batson challenge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not abuse its discretion. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 S.W.3d 610, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 116, 2012 WL 273728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack