State v. Barnes

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Barnes

485 S.W.3d 390, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 293, 2016 WL 1221447

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102908

StatusPublished

This text of 485 S.W.3d 390 (State v. Barnes) 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. Barnes, 485 S.W.3d 390, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 293, 2016 WL 1221447 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM'

Appellant Derrick Barnes (“Barnes”) was convicted of one count of first-degree robbery and one count of armed criminal action after a bench trial. On appeal, Barnes argues the trial court clearly erred in overruling his motion to suppress Victim’s identification of Barnes in a pretrial photographic (“photo”) lineup, a pretrial physical lineup, and at trial. Barnes contends the pretrial lineups were impermissi-bly suggestive and unreliable, rendering Victim’s resulting identifications inadmissible. Because neither pretrial lineup was impermissibly suggestive, the trial court did not clearly err in denying Barnes’s motion to suppress.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM'

Appellant Derrick Barnes (“Barnes”) was convicted of one count of first-degree robbery and one count of armed criminal action after a bench trial. On appeal, Barnes argues the trial court clearly erred in overruling his motion to suppress Victim’s identification of Barnes in a pretrial photographic (“photo”) lineup, a pretrial physical lineup, and at trial. Barnes contends the pretrial lineups were impermissi-bly suggestive and unreliable, rendering Victim’s resulting identifications inadmissible. Because neither pretrial lineup was impermissibly suggestive, the trial court did not clearly err in denying Barnes’s motion to suppress.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 S.W.3d 390, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 293, 2016 WL 1221447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barnes-moctapp-2016.