State v. Brimage

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Brimage

294 S.W.3d 127, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1426, 2009 WL 3188693

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 2009

DocketED 91939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 S.W.3d 127 (State v. Brimage) 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. Brimage, 294 S.W.3d 127, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1426, 2009 WL 3188693 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Chaqueta N. Brimage (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting her of attempted first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, arguing the court erred in denying her request for a mistrial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s refusal to grant a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. State v. McGowan, 184 S.W.3d 607, 610 (MoApp. E.D.2006). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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.

Chaqueta N. Brimage (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting her of attempted first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, arguing the court erred in denying her request for a mistrial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s refusal to grant a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. State v. McGowan, 184 S.W.3d 607, 610 (MoApp. E.D.2006). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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)

294 S.W.3d 127, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1426, 2009 WL 3188693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brimage-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack