State v. Thomas

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Thomas

485 S.W.3d 402, 2016 WL 1335327, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 328

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 2016

DocketWD 77807

StatusPublished

This text of 485 S.W.3d 402 (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, 485 S.W.3d 402, 2016 WL 1335327, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 328 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Appellant Nicholas Thomas was convicted in the Circuit Court of Boone County of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in connection with the shooting death of Tre’Veon Marshall. Thomas was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without probation or parole for first-degree murder, and to twenty years’ imprisonment for armed criminal action. Thomas appeals, arguing that the circuit court erroneously excluded a Facebook posting and photograph of another person as evidence at his trial; Thomas contends that this evidence implicates the other person in Marshall’s murder, and was necessary to explain the course of the police’s investigation. 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 Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties.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, Appellant Nicholas Thomas was convicted in the Circuit Court of Boone County of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in connection with the shooting death of Tre’Veon Marshall. Thomas was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without probation or parole for first-degree murder, and to twenty years’ imprisonment for armed criminal action. Thomas appeals, arguing that the circuit court erroneously excluded a Facebook posting and photograph of another person as evidence at his trial; Thomas contends that this evidence implicates the other person in Marshall’s murder, and was necessary to explain the course of the police’s investigation. 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 Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties.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)

485 S.W.3d 402, 2016 WL 1335327, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-moctapp-2016.