State v. Hamm

294 S.W.3d 127, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1413, 2009 WL 3188697
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 6, 2009·No. ED 91946·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gary Hamm (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence after a jury convicted him of second-degree trafficking, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving with a revoked license. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by overruling his motion for a mistrial after a State’s witness testified about Defendant’s post -Miranda silence. Finding no error, we affirm.

*128 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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

State v. Hamm, 294 S.W.3d 127, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1413, 2009 WL 3188697 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

294 S.W.3d 127 (State v. Hamm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Brimage
294 S.W.3d 127 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)