State v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Johnson

390 S.W.3d 259, 2013 WL 326722, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 119

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 29, 2013

DocketNo. ED 97544

StatusPublished

This text of 390 S.W.3d 259 (State v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 390 S.W.3d 259, 2013 WL 326722, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 119 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gregory L. Johnson, Jr. (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of two counts of first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000,¹ and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Defendant argues [260]*260the trial court: (1) abused its discretion in overruling Defendant’s objection and allowing the State to ask the venirepersons if they could consider a verdict of guilt without fingerprints, DNA, or the actual gun in evidence, and (2) plainly erred in oveiTuling Defendant’s objection to Detective Amy Funk’s (“Detective Funk”) statement that she believed a robbery had occurred.

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 would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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.

Gregory L. Johnson, Jr. (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of two counts of first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000,¹ and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Defendant argues [260]*260the trial court: (1) abused its discretion in overruling Defendant’s objection and allowing the State to ask the venirepersons if they could consider a verdict of guilt without fingerprints, DNA, or the actual gun in evidence, and (2) plainly erred in oveiTuling Defendant’s objection to Detective Amy Funk’s (“Detective Funk”) statement that she believed a robbery had occurred.

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 would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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)

390 S.W.3d 259, 2013 WL 326722, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-moctapp-2013.