State v. Williams

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Williams

363 S.W.3d 132, 2012 WL 123105, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 42

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 17, 2012

DocketED 96573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 363 S.W.3d 132 (State v. Williams) 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. Williams, 363 S.W.3d 132, 2012 WL 123105, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 42 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shaun Williams (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, Section 571.070, RSMo Cum. Supp.2010 1 . Defendant argues the trial court erred in entering its judgment and sentence against Defendant because Section 571.070 violates Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution in that it is an absolute ban on Defendant’s right to keep and bear arms in defense of his person and property instead of being a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction allowed under the police power of the State and there is no substantial relationship between banning all convicted felons under all circumstances from owning firearms and protecting the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. Defendant also argues the trial court erred in overruling his objection that the State unfairly shifted the burden of proof to him when the State argued the jury should draw an adverse inference from Defendant’s failure to submit photographic evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo Cum.Supp.2010.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shaun Williams (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, Section 571.070, RSMo Cum. Supp.2010 1 . Defendant argues the trial court erred in entering its judgment and sentence against Defendant because Section 571.070 violates Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution in that it is an absolute ban on Defendant’s right to keep and bear arms in defense of his person and property instead of being a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction allowed under the police power of the State and there is no substantial relationship between banning all convicted felons under all circumstances from owning firearms and protecting the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. Defendant also argues the trial court erred in overruling his objection that the State unfairly shifted the burden of proof to him when the State argued the jury should draw an adverse inference from Defendant’s failure to submit photographic evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo Cum.Supp.2010.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 S.W.3d 132, 2012 WL 123105, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack