State v. Herndon

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Herndon

524 S.W.3d 614, 2017 WL 3480930, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 772

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 15, 2017

DocketED 104528

StatusPublished

This text of 524 S.W.3d 614 (State v. Herndon) 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. Herndon, 524 S.W.3d 614, 2017 WL 3480930, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 772 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, Antwan Herndon appeals, his conviction of two counts of first-degree attempted robbery, Section 569.020, one count of first-degree burglary, Section 569.160, one count of kidnapping, Section 565.110, and four counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 (RSMo Cum. Sup. 2016). Defendant submits one point on appeal, contending the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to cross-examine him about his opinion of a state .witness. We affirm. .:

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Following a jury trial, Antwan Herndon appeals, his conviction of two counts of first-degree attempted robbery, Section 569.020, one count of first-degree burglary, Section 569.160, one count of kidnapping, Section 565.110, and four counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 (RSMo Cum. Sup. 2016). Defendant submits one point on appeal, contending the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to cross-examine him about his opinion of a state .witness. We affirm. .:

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 S.W.3d 614, 2017 WL 3480930, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-herndon-moctapp-2017.