State v. Bell

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bell

158 S.W.3d 334, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 458, 2005 WL 703935

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 2005

DocketNo. WD 63659

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.W.3d 334 (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, 158 S.W.3d 334, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 458, 2005 WL 703935 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The State charged Appellant Clarence Bell as a prior drug offender with six counts of the class B felony of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.211 RSMo 2000. The six counts stemmed from crack cocaine sales Bell allegedly made to a confidential informant on six different dates in December 2001, and January 2002. After a trial, the jury acquitted Bell on five of the charges but convicted him of one count of delivery of a controlled substance on January 11, 2002.

On appeal from the judgment entered upon his conviction, Bell claims the trial court abused its discretion by: (I) not striking a juror for cause; (II) allowing a witness for the State to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and (III) overruling Bell’s request for continuance to investigate the State’s witness and allowing the witness to testify. We affirm the judgment 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.

The State charged Appellant Clarence Bell as a prior drug offender with six counts of the class B felony of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.211 RSMo 2000. The six counts stemmed from crack cocaine sales Bell allegedly made to a confidential informant on six different dates in December 2001, and January 2002. After a trial, the jury acquitted Bell on five of the charges but convicted him of one count of delivery of a controlled substance on January 11, 2002.

On appeal from the judgment entered upon his conviction, Bell claims the trial court abused its discretion by: (I) not striking a juror for cause; (II) allowing a witness for the State to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and (III) overruling Bell’s request for continuance to investigate the State’s witness and allowing the witness to testify. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.W.3d 334, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 458, 2005 WL 703935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bell-moctapp-2005.