State v. Harden

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Harden

108 S.W.3d 126, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 849, 2003 WL 21323067

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 2003

DocketNo. ED 80821

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.W.3d 126 (State v. Harden) 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. Harden, 108 S.W.3d 126, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 849, 2003 WL 21323067 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Harden (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from a jury verdict convicting him of first degree robbery pursuant to Section 569.020 RSMo (2002) and armed criminal action pursuant to Section 571.015 RSMo (2002). Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirteen years and five years imprisonment, respectively. Appellant brings one point of error claiming the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony over his defense counsel’s objection. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court did not abuse its discre[127]*127tion in admitting the hearsay evidence. State v. McElroy, 838 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App. E.D.1992). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Michael Harden (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from a jury verdict convicting him of first degree robbery pursuant to Section 569.020 RSMo (2002) and armed criminal action pursuant to Section 571.015 RSMo (2002). Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirteen years and five years imprisonment, respectively. Appellant brings one point of error claiming the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony over his defense counsel’s objection. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court did not abuse its discre[127]*127tion in admitting the hearsay evidence. State v. McElroy, 838 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App. E.D.1992). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.W.3d 126, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 849, 2003 WL 21323067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harden-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack