State v. Gillespie

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gillespie

281 S.W.3d 926, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 553, 2009 WL 1121024

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 28, 2009·No. ED 91180·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Shenandoah Gillespie, appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of robbery in the second degree. On appeal, defendant argues that the victim’s identifications of him were the result of impermissibly suggestive police procedures and this rendered the victim’s identifications unreliable.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Shenandoah Gillespie, appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of robbery in the second degree. On appeal, defendant argues that the victim’s identifications of him were the result of impermissibly suggestive police procedures and this rendered the victim’s identifications unreliable.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Gillespie, 281 S.W.3d 926, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 553, 2009 WL 1121024 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

281 S.W.3d 926 (State v. Gillespie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related