State v. Evans

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Evans

868 S.W.2d 557, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 107, 1994 WL 16532

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Evans. Read the opinion of the Court — 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1579 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 25, 1994·No. No. 62887·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and interfering with an arrest. On appeal, Defendant alleges there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction for interfering with an arrest. We affirm.

Further, we find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and affirm by summary order. Rule 30.-25(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision has been issued to the parties for their use only.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and interfering with an arrest. On appeal, Defendant alleges there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction for interfering with an arrest. We affirm.

Further, we find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and affirm by summary order. Rule 30.-25(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision has been issued to the parties for their use only.

State v. Evans, 868 S.W.2d 557, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 107, 1994 WL 16532 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

868 S.W.2d 557 (State v. Evans) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.