State v. Crawford

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Crawford

129 S.W.3d 455, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 357, 2004 WL 516711

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 16, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82606

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.W.3d 455 (State v. Crawford) 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. Crawford, 129 S.W.3d 455, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 357, 2004 WL 516711 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Wayne Crawford, appeals the judgment entered upon his con[456]*456viction by a jury for possession of over 35 grams of marijuana, a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo. (2000). The defendant alleges the trial court erred in: (1) denying his supplemental motion for new trial regarding his claim that a defense witness had been coerced into not testifying; and (2) overruling his objections to the prosecutor’s comments in closing argument that the victim of the alleged burglary did not want to prosecute.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We find defendant’s supplemental motion for new trial was untimely filed. We also find no abuse of discretion in the court’s rulings at closing argument. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

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.

The defendant, Wayne Crawford, appeals the judgment entered upon his con[456]*456viction by a jury for possession of over 35 grams of marijuana, a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo. (2000). The defendant alleges the trial court erred in: (1) denying his supplemental motion for new trial regarding his claim that a defense witness had been coerced into not testifying; and (2) overruling his objections to the prosecutor’s comments in closing argument that the victim of the alleged burglary did not want to prosecute.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We find defendant’s supplemental motion for new trial was untimely filed. We also find no abuse of discretion in the court’s rulings at closing argument. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.W.3d 455, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 357, 2004 WL 516711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-crawford-moctapp-2004.