State v. Frey

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Frey

528 S.W.3d 479

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 26, 2017

DocketWD 79722

StatusPublished

This text of 528 S.W.3d 479 (State v. Frey) 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. Frey, 528 S.W.3d 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

Per Curiam:

Steven Frey, Jr., appeals, following a jury trial, his convictions of first-degree statutory sodomy, § 566.062, and second-degree statutory sodomy, § 566.064, for which he was sentenced by the court as a persistent felony offender to concurrent terms of twenty-five and fifteen years, respectively. Frey brings two points on appeal. First, he argues that the court erred in admitting his statement to Officer Swanson because it was taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Second, he argues that the court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after a State’s witness mentioned that Frey had been in jail on the charges. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 30.26(b).

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

Order

Per Curiam:

Steven Frey, Jr., appeals, following a jury trial, his convictions of first-degree statutory sodomy, § 566.062, and second-degree statutory sodomy, § 566.064, for which he was sentenced by the court as a persistent felony offender to concurrent terms of twenty-five and fifteen years, respectively. Frey brings two points on appeal. First, he argues that the court erred in admitting his statement to Officer Swanson because it was taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Second, he argues that the court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after a State’s witness mentioned that Frey had been in jail on the charges. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 30.26(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 S.W.3d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frey-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack