State v. Collier

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Collier

502 S.W.3d 770, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1180, 2016 WL 6871541

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103436

StatusPublished

This text of 502 S.W.3d 770 (State v. Collier) 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. Collier, 502 S.W.3d 770, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1180, 2016 WL 6871541 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

■ ORDER

PER CURIAM

Randy Collier (“Collier”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a jury trial, convicting him on one count of first-degree robbery and one count of armed criminal action. Collier raises two points on appeal. Collier first argues that the trial court erred in permitting the State to ask the venire panel during voir dire if it would require the State to produce the knife used in the robbery. Collier next contends that the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of Victim regarding Victim’s purportedly illegal business practices.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished [771]*771with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

■ ORDER

PER CURIAM

Randy Collier (“Collier”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a jury trial, convicting him on one count of first-degree robbery and one count of armed criminal action. Collier raises two points on appeal. Collier first argues that the trial court erred in permitting the State to ask the venire panel during voir dire if it would require the State to produce the knife used in the robbery. Collier next contends that the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of Victim regarding Victim’s purportedly illegal business practices.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished [771]*771with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 S.W.3d 770, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1180, 2016 WL 6871541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-collier-moctapp-2016.