State v. Costello

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Costello

367 S.W.3d 158, 2012 WL 1861515, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 691

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 2012

DocketNo. ED 96205

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 367 S.W.3d 158 (State v. Costello) 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. Costello, 367 S.W.3d 158, 2012 WL 1861515, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 691 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keith Costello appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of one count of first-degree robbery. We find the court did not err in denying Costello’s motion to dismiss for violation of his right to speedy trial. In addition, we find the court did not err in excluding evidence of a provision in a witness cooperation agreement allowing the State to require the witness to submit to a polygraph test. Finally, we find the trial court did not err in allowing comments about defense counsel during the prosecutor’s closing argument. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keith Costello appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of one count of first-degree robbery. We find the court did not err in denying Costello’s motion to dismiss for violation of his right to speedy trial. In addition, we find the court did not err in excluding evidence of a provision in a witness cooperation agreement allowing the State to require the witness to submit to a polygraph test. Finally, we find the trial court did not err in allowing comments about defense counsel during the prosecutor’s closing argument. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 S.W.3d 158, 2012 WL 1861515, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-costello-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack