State v. White

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. White

356 S.W.3d 880, 2012 WL 123065, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 41

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 17, 2012

DocketNo. ED 96298

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 356 S.W.3d 880 (State v. White) 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. White, 356 S.W.3d 880, 2012 WL 123065, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 41 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

DeWayne White (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062;¹ first-degree child molestation, Section 566.067; first-degree child endangerment, Section 568.045; and two counts of furnishing pornography to a minor, Section 573.040. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial. State v. Benedict, 319 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Mo.App. S.D.2010). 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.

DeWayne White (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062;¹ first-degree child molestation, Section 566.067; first-degree child endangerment, Section 568.045; and two counts of furnishing pornography to a minor, Section 573.040. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial. State v. Benedict, 319 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Mo.App. S.D.2010). 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)

356 S.W.3d 880, 2012 WL 123065, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-white-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack