State v. Wilkerson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Wilkerson

527 S.W.3d 856

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103534

StatusPublished

This text of 527 S.W.3d 856 (State v. Wilkerson) 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. Wilkerson, 527 S.W.3d 856 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas J. Wilkerson (“Wilkerson”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of abuse of a child and four counts of tampering with a witness. Wilkerson raises six points on appeal. Wilkerson’s claims of error include the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and instructional error as to all counts, the sufficiency of the Information, double jeopardy violations as to the counts of tampering -with a witness, and improperly admitted evidence of uncharged wrongdoings as well as improper statements and questions by the prosecutor. 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 memorandum 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.

Thomas J. Wilkerson (“Wilkerson”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of abuse of a child and four counts of tampering with a witness. Wilkerson raises six points on appeal. Wilkerson’s claims of error include the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and instructional error as to all counts, the sufficiency of the Information, double jeopardy violations as to the counts of tampering -with a witness, and improperly admitted evidence of uncharged wrongdoings as well as improper statements and questions by the prosecutor. 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 memorandum 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 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wilkerson-moctapp-2017.