State v. Bell

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bell

14 S.W.3d 67, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2444, 1999 WL 1243796

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 21, 1999

DocketNo. ED 75683

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 S.W.3d 67 (State v. Bell) 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. Bell, 14 S.W.3d 67, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2444, 1999 WL 1243796 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Winston Bell (Bell) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of first-degree murder, Section 565.020, RSMo 1994,¹ and armed criminal action, Section 571.075, for which he was sen-fenced as a persistent offender to concurrent terms of life in prison without parole and life in prison. Bell claims the trial court erred in (1) allowing hearsay statements regarding prior abuse over his objections, (2) answering a question posed by the jury during deliberations without notifying counsel, (3) overruling objections and motions for mistrial when the court called a defense witness a “lying witness,” (4) allowing the State to strike an African-American venireperson, and (5) prohibiting testimony to rebut State testimony regarding prior incidents of abuse. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the transcript. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth reasons for this order 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.

Winston Bell (Bell) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of first-degree murder, Section 565.020, RSMo 1994,¹ and armed criminal action, Section 571.075, for which he was sen-fenced as a persistent offender to concurrent terms of life in prison without parole and life in prison. Bell claims the trial court erred in (1) allowing hearsay statements regarding prior abuse over his objections, (2) answering a question posed by the jury during deliberations without notifying counsel, (3) overruling objections and motions for mistrial when the court called a defense witness a “lying witness,” (4) allowing the State to strike an African-American venireperson, and (5) prohibiting testimony to rebut State testimony regarding prior incidents of abuse. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the transcript. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.W.3d 67, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2444, 1999 WL 1243796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bell-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack