State v. Douglas

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Douglas

341 S.W.3d 820, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 745, 2011 WL 2118806

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 2011

DocketWD 72288

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 341 S.W.3d 820 (State v. Douglas) 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. Douglas, 341 S.W.3d 820, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 745, 2011 WL 2118806 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Jack Douglas was convicted of driving with a revoked driver’s license. He appeals, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing hearsay statements into evidence, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to object to certain hearsay statements. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Jack Douglas was convicted of driving with a revoked driver’s license. He appeals, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing hearsay statements into evidence, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to object to certain hearsay statements. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 820, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 745, 2011 WL 2118806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-douglas-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack