State v. BEVINEAU-DICKSON

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. BEVINEAU-DICKSON

366 S.W.3d 85, 2012 WL 1623574, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 632

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 9, 2012

DocketED 96955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 366 S.W.3d 85 (State v. BEVINEAU-DICKSON) 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. BEVINEAU-DICKSON, 366 S.W.3d 85, 2012 WL 1623574, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laura Bevineau-Dickson (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting her of two counts of distributing a controlled substance. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection to a portion of defense counsel’s opening statement. We also conclude that Appellant has failed to show that any prejudice resulted from the trial court’s ruling. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laura Bevineau-Dickson (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting her of two counts of distributing a controlled substance. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection to a portion of defense counsel’s opening statement. We also conclude that Appellant has failed to show that any prejudice resulted from the trial court’s ruling. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 S.W.3d 85, 2012 WL 1623574, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bevineau-dickson-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack