State v. Barton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Barton

481 S.W.3d 602, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 89, 2016 WL 519716

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102327

StatusPublished

This text of 481 S.W.3d 602 (State v. Barton) 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. Barton, 481 S.W.3d 602, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 89, 2016 WL 519716 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Antoine D. Barton (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, entered after a jury trial, finding him guilty of first-degree murder arid armed criminal action. On appeal, Appellant asserts the trial court erred by .admitting jailhouse phone recordings of a State witness for two reasons: (1) the State committed a discovery violation by giving late notice to Appellant of its intent to use the recorded phone calls, and (2) the State failed to lay a proper foundation to admit the recorded phone calls. Finding no error, we affirm. ,

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, ■ provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Antoine D. Barton (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, entered after a jury trial, finding him guilty of first-degree murder arid armed criminal action. On appeal, Appellant asserts the trial court erred by .admitting jailhouse phone recordings of a State witness for two reasons: (1) the State committed a discovery violation by giving late notice to Appellant of its intent to use the recorded phone calls, and (2) the State failed to lay a proper foundation to admit the recorded phone calls. Finding no error, we affirm. ,

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, ■ provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 S.W.3d 602, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 89, 2016 WL 519716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barton-moctapp-2016.