OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Seabaugh, Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

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 Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. David Seabaugh, Appellant. Case Number: 73957 Handdown Date: 09/29/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau, Hon. John W. Grimm Counsel for Appellant: Lance Eberhart Counsel for Respondent: Barbara Chesser Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Simon, P.J., Crane and Mooney, JJ., concur. Opinion: ORDER Defendant, David Seabaugh, is appealing from the judgment entered after the trial court convicted him of driving while intoxicated, class D felony, in violation of section 577.010 RSMo 1994 (all references hereinafter shall be to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise indicated); operating a motor vehicle while license revoked, class A misdemeanor, in violation of section 302.321; and possession of a controlled substance, class A misdemeanor, in violation of section 195.202. In his points on appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in: (1) sustaining state's motion in limine and prohibiting a defense witness from testifying about defendant's blood alcohol level and statements defendant made concerning the offense; (2) permitting the prosecutor to define reasonable doubt; and (3) permitting statements and testimony by two Deputy Sheriffs regarding their prior observation of defendant when he was intoxicated and not intoxicated. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the

parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm 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.

Related Opinions

Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,374 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,516 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,993 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976

affirmed

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,670 words