Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Christopher BRUEGGER, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2010-12-21
Citations: 327 S.W.3d 629
Docket Number: No. ED 94169
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Christopher BRUEGGER, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.j:, CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 327
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Christopher BRUEGGER, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 94169.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Dec. 21, 2010.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Kate E. Noland, Jefferson City, MO, for Plaintiff/Respondent.
Margaret M. Johnston, Columbia, MO, for Defendant/Appellant.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.j:, CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Bruegger (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of five counts of sécond-degree statutory sodomy and two counts of second-degree child molestation. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor's line of questioning. State v. Tokar, 918 S.W.2d 753, 770 (Mo.banc 1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).