State v. Esposito

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Esposito

130 S.W.3d 596, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 2003 WL 22846788

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 2, 2003

DocketNo. ED 82200

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.W.3d 596 (State v. Esposito) 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. Esposito, 130 S.W.3d 596, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 2003 WL 22846788 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Esposito (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count each of attempted manufacturing of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and stealing anhydrous ammonia. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions and argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to admonish, sua sponte, the prosecutor not to use voir dire to posture the State’s case to the jury. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Further, Defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted from the prosecutor’s comments, and therefore the trial court did not plainly err in failing to admonish, sua sponte, the prosecutor. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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 Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Esposito (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count each of attempted manufacturing of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and stealing anhydrous ammonia. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions and argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to admonish, sua sponte, the prosecutor not to use voir dire to posture the State’s case to the jury. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Further, Defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted from the prosecutor’s comments, and therefore the trial court did not plainly err in failing to admonish, sua sponte, the prosecutor. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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 Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.W.3d 596, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 2003 WL 22846788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-esposito-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack