State v. Hickerson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hickerson

358 S.W.3d 585, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 168, 2012 WL 453735

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

DocketED 96184

StatusPublished

This text of 358 S.W.3d 585 (State v. Hickerson) 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. Hickerson, 358 S.W.3d 585, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 168, 2012 WL 453735 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eric B. Hickerson (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the second degree, Section 569.170, RSMo 2000, and property damage in the first degree, Section 569.100, RSMo 2000. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a mistrial after statements from the prosecution violated his right to silence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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.

Eric B. Hickerson (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the second degree, Section 569.170, RSMo 2000, and property damage in the first degree, Section 569.100, RSMo 2000. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a mistrial after statements from the prosecution violated his right to silence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.3d 585, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 168, 2012 WL 453735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hickerson-moctapp-2012.