State v. Counts

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Counts

103 S.W.3d 887, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 536, 2003 WL 1893179

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 2003

DocketNo. ED 80917

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.W.3d 887 (State v. Counts) 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. Counts, 103 S.W.3d 887, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 536, 2003 WL 1893179 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark A. Counts (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree. [888]*888Defendant alleges trial court error in limiting his character witnesses’ testimony to Defendant’s general reputation in the community for recklessness and in denying his motion for mistrial based on certain cross-examination of those witnesses. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the testimony of Defendant’s three character witnesses to Defendant’s general reputation in the community for recklessness. State v. Skaggs, 74 S.W.3d 282, 285 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Farther, we find no plain error in the trial court’s denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial because Defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. Rule 30.20.¹ An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment 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.

Mark A. Counts (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree. [888]*888Defendant alleges trial court error in limiting his character witnesses’ testimony to Defendant’s general reputation in the community for recklessness and in denying his motion for mistrial based on certain cross-examination of those witnesses. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the testimony of Defendant’s three character witnesses to Defendant’s general reputation in the community for recklessness. State v. Skaggs, 74 S.W.3d 282, 285 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Farther, we find no plain error in the trial court’s denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial because Defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. Rule 30.20.¹ An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.W.3d 887, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 536, 2003 WL 1893179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-counts-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack