State v. Wormington

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Wormington

502 S.W.3d 75, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1057, 2016 WL 6212041

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103758

StatusPublished

This text of 502 S.W.3d 75 (State v. Wormington) 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. Wormington, 502 S.W.3d 75, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1057, 2016 WL 6212041 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Wormington (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, in violation of section 565.024.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found Appellant acted recklessly in causing the death of the Jade Stafford. In addition, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s request for a mistrial. 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.

Aaron Wormington (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, in violation of section 565.024.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found Appellant acted recklessly in causing the death of the Jade Stafford. In addition, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s request for a mistrial. 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)

502 S.W.3d 75, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1057, 2016 WL 6212041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wormington-moctapp-2016.