State v. Gray

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gray

99 S.W.3d 14, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 29, 2003 WL 105199

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 2003

DocketNo. ED 80248

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 S.W.3d 14 (State v. Gray) 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. Gray, 99 S.W.3d 14, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 29, 2003 WL 105199 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Charles E. Gray, appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree murder in violation of Section 565.021, RSMo 2000; armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo 2000; and first-degree robbery in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000. He contends the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence.

[15]*15Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the admitted evidence was not so prejudicial that it deprived Defendant of a fair trial. State v. Shaw, 14 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum for their use only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Charles E. Gray, appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree murder in violation of Section 565.021, RSMo 2000; armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo 2000; and first-degree robbery in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000. He contends the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence.

[15]*15Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the admitted evidence was not so prejudicial that it deprived Defendant of a fair trial. State v. Shaw, 14 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum for their use only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.W.3d 14, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 29, 2003 WL 105199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gray-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack