State v. Hazelrigg

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hazelrigg

395 S.W.3d 613, 2013 WL 1411815, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 445

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 9, 2013·No. No. WD 74833·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Lisa Hazelrigg appeals from a conviction of one count of animal abuse under section 578.012. She argues that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling her motion in limine and objections to testimony from witnesses that described her dog as a “pit bull” or “pit mix” because the term’s probative value was outweighed by its [614] prejudicial impact. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Lisa Hazelrigg appeals from a conviction of one count of animal abuse under section 578.012. She argues that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling her motion in limine and objections to testimony from witnesses that described her dog as a “pit bull” or “pit mix” because the term’s probative value was outweighed by its [614] prejudicial impact. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Hazelrigg, 395 S.W.3d 613, 2013 WL 1411815, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 445 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

395 S.W.3d 613 (State v. Hazelrigg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.