State v. Cadwell

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cadwell

209 S.W.3d 560, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 4, 2007 WL 10743

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 2, 2007

DocketNo. WD 66086

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 S.W.3d 560 (State v. Cadwell) 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. Cadwell, 209 S.W.3d 560, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 4, 2007 WL 10743 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth L. Cadwell was convicted of driving while intoxicated in violation of RSMo. section 577.010 and driving after revocation in violation of RSMo. section 302.321. Cadwell argues on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to testify that his license was revoked for a ten-year period and admitting his driving record into evidence, even though the jury was not permitted to see the exhibit. The trial court did not err in allowing the officer to testify since one of the elements of driving after revocation is that the defendant was aware that his license was revoked. As to the second point, since the argument now presented was not made in front of the trial court, this issue was not preserved for appeal. We do not find that plain error review is warranted in this case.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth L. Cadwell was convicted of driving while intoxicated in violation of RSMo. section 577.010 and driving after revocation in violation of RSMo. section 302.321. Cadwell argues on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to testify that his license was revoked for a ten-year period and admitting his driving record into evidence, even though the jury was not permitted to see the exhibit. The trial court did not err in allowing the officer to testify since one of the elements of driving after revocation is that the defendant was aware that his license was revoked. As to the second point, since the argument now presented was not made in front of the trial court, this issue was not preserved for appeal. We do not find that plain error review is warranted in this case.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 S.W.3d 560, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 4, 2007 WL 10743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cadwell-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack