State v. Hollings

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hollings

549 S.W.3d 539

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105607

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 549 S.W.3d 539 (State v. Hollings) 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. Hollings, 549 S.W.3d 539 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Darnell Hollings ("Hollings") appeals the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of first-degree assault and an associated count of armed criminal action. In his sole point on appeal, Hollings argues the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his motion in limine to allow extrinsic evidence of a witness's racial bias, excluding all questioning and testimony at trial regarding the witness's racial bias, and rejecting and overruling Hollings's offer of proof of the witness's testimony. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. An extended 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

PER CURIAM.

Darnell Hollings ("Hollings") appeals the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in which he was convicted of one count of first-degree assault and an associated count of armed criminal action. In his sole point on appeal, Hollings argues the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his motion in limine to allow extrinsic evidence of a witness's racial bias, excluding all questioning and testimony at trial regarding the witness's racial bias, and rejecting and overruling Hollings's offer of proof of the witness's testimony. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. An extended 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

549 S.W.3d 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hollings-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack