State v. Webb

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Webb

527 S.W.3d 855

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104484

StatusPublished

This text of 527 S.W.3d 855 (State v. Webb) 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. Webb, 527 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerald Lee Webb (‘Webb”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of first-degree statutory rape, one count of second-degree statutory rape, and two counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, Webb asserts ten points on appeal. Webb’s claims of error include instructional error, variances between the indictment and jury instructions, improper admission of evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not err in its judgment. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a [856]*856memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerald Lee Webb (‘Webb”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of first-degree statutory rape, one count of second-degree statutory rape, and two counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, Webb asserts ten points on appeal. Webb’s claims of error include instructional error, variances between the indictment and jury instructions, improper admission of evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not err in its judgment. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a [856]*856memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 S.W.3d 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-webb-moctapp-2017.