State v. Bailey

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bailey

190 S.W.3d 562, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 585, 2006 WL 1147651

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 86206

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 S.W.3d 562 (State v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bailey, 190 S.W.3d 562, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 585, 2006 WL 1147651 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant James E. Bailey (Bailey) appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (Court), the Honorable Timothy J. Wilson, after a jury found him guilty of Trafficking in the Second Degree, Section 195.223 RSMo. (2000). The Court sentenced Bailey, as a prior and persistent offender, to twelve years’ imprisonment, without eligibility for probation or parole.

On appeal, Bailey contends 1) the Court failed to grant a mistrial when the prosecutor mentioned, in opening statement, that the police would testify that an informant notified them of drug activity at Bailey’s residence; 2) Officer Wolffs testimony that he observed drug activity at Bailey’s residence was hearsay and evidence of uncharged acts of trafficking; 3) the Court improperly allowed a crime lab expert to testify about the tests performed on the drugs seized at the scene, and improperly admitted her lab report; and 4) the Court improperly overruled his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he purposefully and/or knowingly possessed more than six grams of cocaine.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the Record on Appeal, and we find no error of law in this case. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant James E. Bailey (Bailey) appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (Court), the Honorable Timothy J. Wilson, after a jury found him guilty of Trafficking in the Second Degree, Section 195.223 RSMo. (2000). The Court sentenced Bailey, as a prior and persistent offender, to twelve years’ imprisonment, without eligibility for probation or parole.

On appeal, Bailey contends 1) the Court failed to grant a mistrial when the prosecutor mentioned, in opening statement, that the police would testify that an informant notified them of drug activity at Bailey’s residence; 2) Officer Wolffs testimony that he observed drug activity at Bailey’s residence was hearsay and evidence of uncharged acts of trafficking; 3) the Court improperly allowed a crime lab expert to testify about the tests performed on the drugs seized at the scene, and improperly admitted her lab report; and 4) the Court improperly overruled his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he purposefully and/or knowingly possessed more than six grams of cocaine.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the Record on Appeal, and we find no error of law in this case. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 562, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 585, 2006 WL 1147651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bailey-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack