State v. Delozier

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Delozier

503 S.W.3d 330, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1164, 2016 WL 6695798

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 15, 2016

DocketNo. ED103655

StatusPublished

This text of 503 S.W.3d 330 (State v. Delozier) 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. Delozier, 503 S.W.3d 330, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1164, 2016 WL 6695798 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ralph Delozier appeals his convictions by a Montgomery County jury of one count of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute and one count of unlawful use of drug paraphernalia with intent to use. Delozier raises two points on appeal: 1) that the trial court plainly erred in failing to sua spowte declare a mistrial when the State knowingly elicited false testimony from Sewell; and 2) that the trial court plainly erred in failing to sua sponte enter a curative instruction or declare a mistrial after the State implied during its closing argument that Delozier was exchanging drugs for sex with Sewell. Finding no error of law, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ralph Delozier appeals his convictions by a Montgomery County jury of one count of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute and one count of unlawful use of drug paraphernalia with intent to use. Delozier raises two points on appeal: 1) that the trial court plainly erred in failing to sua spowte declare a mistrial when the State knowingly elicited false testimony from Sewell; and 2) that the trial court plainly erred in failing to sua sponte enter a curative instruction or declare a mistrial after the State implied during its closing argument that Delozier was exchanging drugs for sex with Sewell. Finding no error of law, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 S.W.3d 330, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1164, 2016 WL 6695798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-delozier-moctapp-2016.