State v. Bowden

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bowden

481 S.W.3d 563, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1207, 2015 WL 7444835

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 2015

DocketNo. ED 101805

StatusPublished

This text of 481 S.W.3d 563 (State v. Bowden) 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. Bowden, 481 S.W.3d 563, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1207, 2015 WL 7444835 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Bowden (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction that the Circuit Court of the City of' St. Louis entered after finding Defendant guilty of leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony relating to the estimated cost of repairs for the damaged .vehicle.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not dearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.- We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the- use of the parties' setting .forth the reasons for our decision.

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.

Stephen Bowden (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction that the Circuit Court of the City of' St. Louis entered after finding Defendant guilty of leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony relating to the estimated cost of repairs for the damaged .vehicle.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not dearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.- We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the- use of the parties' setting .forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 S.W.3d 563, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1207, 2015 WL 7444835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bowden-moctapp-2015.