State v. Tillman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Tillman

330 S.W.3d 511, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, 2010 WL 4628183

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 2010

DocketED 94013

StatusPublished

This text of 330 S.W.3d 511 (State v. Tillman) 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. Tillman, 330 S.W.3d 511, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, 2010 WL 4628183 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Tillman appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in determining the qualifications of prospective jurors, Catlett v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. Co., 798 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo.banc 1990), nor did it err, plain or otherwise, in submitting the self-defense instruction, State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278, 280 (Mo.banc 2002) (instructional error); State v. Reed, 243 S.W.3d 538, 540 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (plain error). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Tillman appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in determining the qualifications of prospective jurors, Catlett v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. Co., 798 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo.banc 1990), nor did it err, plain or otherwise, in submitting the self-defense instruction, State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278, 280 (Mo.banc 2002) (instructional error); State v. Reed, 243 S.W.3d 538, 540 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (plain error). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 S.W.3d 511, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, 2010 WL 4628183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tillman-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack