State v. Donahue

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Donahue

243 S.W.3d 500, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 66, 2008 WL 126589

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

DocketNo. ED 89531

StatusPublished

This text of 243 S.W.3d 500 (State v. Donahue) 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. Donahue, 243 S.W.3d 500, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 66, 2008 WL 126589 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas E. Donahue (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of one count of second-degree trafficking. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence and in admitting the marijuana and the evidence concerning it because the evidence was collected pursuant to an invalid seizure. Defendant also argues the trial court plainly erred in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress and in admitting his inculpatory statements because Defendant would not have admitted to possessing the marijuana had he not been improperly seized.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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.

Thomas E. Donahue (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of one count of second-degree trafficking. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence and in admitting the marijuana and the evidence concerning it because the evidence was collected pursuant to an invalid seizure. Defendant also argues the trial court plainly erred in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress and in admitting his inculpatory statements because Defendant would not have admitted to possessing the marijuana had he not been improperly seized.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.W.3d 500, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 66, 2008 WL 126589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-donahue-moctapp-2008.