State v. Griffin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Griffin

228 S.W.3d 48, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 977, 2007 WL 1856327

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 2007

DocketED 88270

StatusPublished

This text of 228 S.W.3d 48 (State v. Griffin) 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. Griffin, 228 S.W.3d 48, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 977, 2007 WL 1856327 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Griffin (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of felony possession of a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.211, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to eight years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court plainly erred in (1) admitting the officer’s statements about the information he received regarding possible drug sales at a gas station, and (2) allowing the State to question a defense witness about why he did not contact the prosecutor’s office or the police or volunteer exculpatory evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Griffin (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of felony possession of a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.211, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to eight years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court plainly erred in (1) admitting the officer’s statements about the information he received regarding possible drug sales at a gas station, and (2) allowing the State to question a defense witness about why he did not contact the prosecutor’s office or the police or volunteer exculpatory evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.W.3d 48, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 977, 2007 WL 1856327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-griffin-moctapp-2007.