State v. Hunt

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hunt

481 S.W.3d 923, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 166, 2016 WL 719617

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2016

DocketWD 78220

StatusPublished

This text of 481 S.W.3d 923 (State v. Hunt) 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. Hunt, 481 S.W.3d 923, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 166, 2016 WL 719617 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Willard Hunt appeals his convictions and sentences following a jury trial for arson in the first degree, section 565.040, RSMo Cum.' Súpp. 2013, domestic assault in the first degree, section 565.072, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013, and armed criminal action, section 571.015, RSMo 2000. In his sole point on appeal, Hunt'contends-that the trial court plainly erred' in 'failing ma sponte to declare a mistrial or instruct the jury to disregard when a police officer testified that Hunt asserted his right to counsel at the police station after his arrest. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum had- been provided to the parties. The’ judgment of convictions is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Willard Hunt appeals his convictions and sentences following a jury trial for arson in the first degree, section 565.040, RSMo Cum.' Súpp. 2013, domestic assault in the first degree, section 565.072, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013, and armed criminal action, section 571.015, RSMo 2000. In his sole point on appeal, Hunt'contends-that the trial court plainly erred' in 'failing ma sponte to declare a mistrial or instruct the jury to disregard when a police officer testified that Hunt asserted his right to counsel at the police station after his arrest. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum had- been provided to the parties. The’ judgment of convictions is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 S.W.3d 923, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 166, 2016 WL 719617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hunt-moctapp-2016.