State v. Coleman

945 S.W.2d 81, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 937, 1997 WL 259308
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Coleman. Read the opinion of the Court — 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 829
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 20, 1997·No. No. WD 52913·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Coleman appeals his conviction for felony nonsupport. He argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial, after his former wife testified at trial that she withheld Mr. Coleman’s visitation from his daughter because she suspected he molested their daughter, violated his rights to due process and a fair trial. We find that the court’s curative instruction to the jury removed any prejudice resulting from the erroneous admission of the evidence of other uncharged misconduct, and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Mr. Coleman a mistrial. Finding no precedential value to our decision, we affirm by this summary order but have provided the parties with a memorandum setting out the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

State v. Coleman, 945 S.W.2d 81, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 937, 1997 WL 259308 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

945 S.W.2d 81 (State v. Coleman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.