Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Darryl Blair, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-darryl-blair-defendant-appellant-13353
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13353
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Plaintiff-Respondent%2C+v.+Darryl+Blair%2C+Defendant-Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Darryl Blair, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Number:  73108
Handdown Date:  06/09/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Robert L. Campbell
Counsel for Appellant:  Irene Karns
Counsel for Respondent:  John M. Morris, III and Catherine Chatman
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  R. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant Darryl Blair appeals the judgment entered after the trial court convicted him of 
child abuse in violation of Section 568.060, RSMo 1994, and endangering the welfare of a child 
in violation of Section 568.045, RSMo 1994.  In his sole point on appeal, Defendant claims the 
trial court plainly erred in trying his case without a jury because the court did not ascertain that 
his waiver was knowing and voluntary.
We have reviewed the record on appeal.  The transcript recites Defendant's waiver of a 
jury trial and the legal file contains a written memorandum signed by Defendant indicating a 
voluntary and knowing waiver.  Rule 27.01(b); State v. Butler, 415 S.W.2d 784, 785 (Mo. 1967); 
State v. Turnbough, 604 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Mo.App. E.D. 1980).  When waiving the right to a 
jury trial, Defendant's counsel indicated it was a matter of trial strategy and it was the desire to 

have a bench trial due to the nature of the charges.  Finally, we note Defendant does not claim he 
did not knowingly and voluntarily waive a jury trial.  
An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose.  We affirm the judgment 
pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.