State v. Henderson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Henderson

525 S.W.3d 218, 2017 WL 3597071, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 811

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 22, 2017·No. No. ED 104867·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harold Henderson (“Henderson”) appeals the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of first-degree robbery, one count of ñrst-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. On appeal, Henderson argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification, and in overruling his objections at trial to evidence and arguments related to the witnesses’ identifications of Henderson because the pre-trial photographic lineup procedure was impermissi-bly suggestive, and rendered the pre-trial and in-court identifications unreliable. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err. An extended [219] opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harold Henderson (“Henderson”) appeals the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of first-degree robbery, one count of ñrst-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. On appeal, Henderson argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification, and in overruling his objections at trial to evidence and arguments related to the witnesses’ identifications of Henderson because the pre-trial photographic lineup procedure was impermissi-bly suggestive, and rendered the pre-trial and in-court identifications unreliable. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not clearly err. An extended [219] opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

State v. Henderson, 525 S.W.3d 218, 2017 WL 3597071, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 811 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

525 S.W.3d 218 (State v. Henderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.