State v. Baker

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Baker

235 S.W.3d 592, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1420, 2007 WL 2993554

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 2007

DocketED 88932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 S.W.3d 592 (State v. Baker) 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. Baker, 235 S.W.3d 592, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1420, 2007 WL 2993554 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*593 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cedric Baker appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of felony trafficking in the second degree. We find that the trial court did not plainly err in allowing testimony regarding a confidential informant’s out-of-court statements. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Baker’s motion to suppress and allowing the State to admit the evidence of crack cocaine recovered in the search of Baker’s car. Finally, we find that the trial court did not plainly err in excluding, as hearsay, statements made by a woman claiming ownership of the drugs seized in Baker’s vehicle.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 30.25(b).

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

*593 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cedric Baker appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of felony trafficking in the second degree. We find that the trial court did not plainly err in allowing testimony regarding a confidential informant’s out-of-court statements. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Baker’s motion to suppress and allowing the State to admit the evidence of crack cocaine recovered in the search of Baker’s car. Finally, we find that the trial court did not plainly err in excluding, as hearsay, statements made by a woman claiming ownership of the drugs seized in Baker’s vehicle.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 S.W.3d 592, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1420, 2007 WL 2993554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baker-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack