State v. Brown

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Brown

484 S.W.3d 876, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 260, 2016 WL 1117090

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102868

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 484 S.W.3d 876 (State v. Brown) 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. Brown, 484 S.W.3d 876, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 260, 2016 WL 1117090 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Dajuan Brown appeals his convictions following a jury trial in thé Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of one count of first-degree robbery "and one count of armed criminal action. In his two points on appeal, Brown contends that the trial court erred (1) by admitting in- and out-of-court identifications of him the reliability of which was tainted by impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures, and (2) by overruling his challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), to the State’s peremptory strike of a potential juror. We affirm.

We .have concluded that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth , the 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

Dajuan Brown appeals his convictions following a jury trial in thé Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of one count of first-degree robbery "and one count of armed criminal action. In his two points on appeal, Brown contends that the trial court erred (1) by admitting in- and out-of-court identifications of him the reliability of which was tainted by impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures, and (2) by overruling his challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), to the State’s peremptory strike of a potential juror. We affirm.

We .have concluded that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth , the reasons for , this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 S.W.3d 876, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 260, 2016 WL 1117090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack