OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Lyle, Defendant/Appellant. Michael Lyle, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Michael Lyle, Defendant/·Michael Lyle, Defendant/Appellant. Michael Lyle, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri
Respondent
State of Missouri

Judges

Opinion Author
Kent E. Karohl

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 Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Lyle, Defendant/Appellant. Michael Lyle, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: Nos. 68426 & 70947 Handdown Date: 06/27/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Daniel J. O'Toole Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: Before: Mary Rhodes Russell, P.J., Paul J. Simon, J., and Kent E. Karohl, J. Opinion:

ORDER Michael Lyle appeals from his conviction of two counts of attempted rape, in violation of Section 566.030 RSMo 1994; and three counts of sodomy, in violation of Section 566.060 RSMo 1994, with a nine year-old female. He argues improper admission of evidence of uncharged misconduct, inappropriate comment by the prosecutor in closing argument, and preclusion of his presentation of evidence and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without entering findings of fact and conclusions of law. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties

involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding. Separate Opinion: 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.