State v. Witherbee

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Witherbee

273 S.W.3d 587, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 35, 2009 WL 113863

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 20, 2009

DocketED 91187

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 S.W.3d 587 (State v. Witherbee) 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. Witherbee, 273 S.W.3d 587, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 35, 2009 WL 113863 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Witherbee appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury *588 verdict convicting him of first-degree child molestation and sexual misconduct involving a child. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err, and no manifest injustice nor miscarriage of justice occurred, in allowing the State to admit into evidence a recording of the victim’s statement to a forensic interviewer. Rule 30.20 1 ; State v. Brethold, 149 S.W.3d 906, 909 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2006, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Witherbee appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury *588 verdict convicting him of first-degree child molestation and sexual misconduct involving a child. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err, and no manifest injustice nor miscarriage of justice occurred, in allowing the State to admit into evidence a recording of the victim’s statement to a forensic interviewer. Rule 30.20 1 ; State v. Brethold, 149 S.W.3d 906, 909 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2006, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 S.W.3d 587, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 35, 2009 WL 113863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-witherbee-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack