OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher O. Frasure, Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Christopher O. Frasure
Respondent
State of Missouri

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher O. Frasure, Appellant. Case Number: No. 52496 Handdown Date: 08/12/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Jay A. Daugherty Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Stith, P.J., Breckenridge, and Hanna, JJ. Opinion: Christopher Frasure appeals from his convictions for one count of second degree murder, section 565.021.1, RSMo 1994, three counts of first degree assault, section 565.050, RSMo 1994, and four counts of armed criminal action, section 571.015, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced Mr. Frasure as a prior offender, pursuant to sections 558.016, 557.036.4, and 571.015.2, RSMo 1994, to life imprisonment on the murder charge and three terms of ten years each on the assault charges, to be served consecutively. Mr. Frasure was also sentenced to life imprisonment for one count of armed criminal action and three terms of fifty years on the remaining armed criminal action counts, to be served concurrently with the other sentences and Mr. Frasuresection s sentence from an earlier conviction. Mr. Frasure contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior uncharged crimes because this evidence prejudiced him by depicting him as a person with a violent propensity. Because the evidence of the prior crimes was relevant to show motive, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 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.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.