State v. Harris

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Harris

103 S.W.3d 784, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1898, 2002 WL 31056680

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 17, 2002

DocketED 79925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 S.W.3d 784 (State v. Harris) 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. Harris, 103 S.W.3d 784, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1898, 2002 WL 31056680 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael A. Harris (“Harris”) was convicted of two counts of burglary in the second degree, one count of felony theft, one count of misdemeanor theft and one count of failure to appear in St. Louis County Circuit Court. Harris appeals his conviction on two counts of burglary in the second degree on the basis that the state failed to establish the corpus delicti of the charge. Harris also claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony of Fred Tsai (“Tsai”) and Officer Jeri Gremminger (“Gremminger”). In his final point, Harris claims that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the state’s request to forbid Harris’ counsel from arguing adverse inferences from the state’s failure to call John Ventura (“Ventura”), an eye-witness, at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael A. Harris (“Harris”) was convicted of two counts of burglary in the second degree, one count of felony theft, one count of misdemeanor theft and one count of failure to appear in St. Louis County Circuit Court. Harris appeals his conviction on two counts of burglary in the second degree on the basis that the state failed to establish the corpus delicti of the charge. Harris also claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification testimony of Fred Tsai (“Tsai”) and Officer Jeri Gremminger (“Gremminger”). In his final point, Harris claims that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the state’s request to forbid Harris’ counsel from arguing adverse inferences from the state’s failure to call John Ventura (“Ventura”), an eye-witness, at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.W.3d 784, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1898, 2002 WL 31056680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harris-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack