State v. French

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. French

495 S.W.3d 783, 2016 WL 3068737, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 547

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102376

StatusPublished

This text of 495 S.W.3d 783 (State v. French) 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. French, 495 S.W.3d 783, 2016 WL 3068737, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 547 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER Curiam

Michael French (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his motion for a new trial. On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred when it: (1) allegedly invited jury panelists to refrain from disclosing information during voir dire that might reveal relevant life experiences or prejudices; (2) denied Appellant’s Batson objection; (3) allowed the State to ask a defense witness whether Appellant had been with her when she was arrested for possession of a controlled substance; and (4) allowed the State to improperly bolster a witness’s testimony during closing arguments, In his fifth point on appeal, Appellant asks that we exercise our inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice and remand the case for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm Appellant’s conviction on all points. ,

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We hávé, however, provided á memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for óur decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER Curiam

Michael French (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his motion for a new trial. On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred when it: (1) allegedly invited jury panelists to refrain from disclosing information during voir dire that might reveal relevant life experiences or prejudices; (2) denied Appellant’s Batson objection; (3) allowed the State to ask a defense witness whether Appellant had been with her when she was arrested for possession of a controlled substance; and (4) allowed the State to improperly bolster a witness’s testimony during closing arguments, In his fifth point on appeal, Appellant asks that we exercise our inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice and remand the case for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm Appellant’s conviction on all points. ,

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We hávé, however, provided á memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for óur decision. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 S.W.3d 783, 2016 WL 3068737, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-french-moctapp-2016.