State v. Whenham

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Whenham

498 S.W.3d 520, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 857, 2016 WL 4527604

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2016

DocketWD 78787

StatusPublished

This text of 498 S.W.3d 520 (State v. Whenham) 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. Whenham, 498 S.W.3d 520, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 857, 2016 WL 4527604 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Per curiam:

Appellant, Joshua Whenham (“When-ham”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, by the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri on four counts of the class D felony of sexual misconduct involving a child less than 15 years of age. Whenham raises two points of error on appeal. First, he argues that the court erred in overruling his Batson challenge to the State’s final juror peremptory strike. Second, he argues that the court erred in overruling Whenham’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he committed the offense of sexual misconduct. We affirm. A 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:

Appellant, Joshua Whenham (“When-ham”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, by the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri on four counts of the class D felony of sexual misconduct involving a child less than 15 years of age. Whenham raises two points of error on appeal. First, he argues that the court erred in overruling his Batson challenge to the State’s final juror peremptory strike. Second, he argues that the court erred in overruling Whenham’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he committed the offense of sexual misconduct. We affirm. A 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)

498 S.W.3d 520, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 857, 2016 WL 4527604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-whenham-moctapp-2016.