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

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Jerome Blankenship, 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-plaintiffrespondent-v-jerome-blankenship-defendantappel-13006
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13006
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%2FRespondent%2C+v.+Jerome+Blankenship%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&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. Jerome Blankenship, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  72505
Handdown Date:  06/09/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Francois County, Hon. Stan Murphy
Counsel for Appellant:  Joseph Green
Counsel for Respondent:  Cheryl Caponegro
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant Jerome Blankenship was found guilty following a jury trial of involuntary manslaughter in violation of 
section 565.024 RSMo 1994, and two counts of assault in the second degree in violation of section 565.060 RSMo 1994. 
Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of fourteen years.   Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was 
overruled.  Defendant appeals.
The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.  No error of law appears. 
A written opinion would have no precedential value.  However, we have provided the parties with a memorandum, for their 
information only, setting forth our reasoning.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed 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.