State v. Kelly

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kelly

341 S.W.3d 142, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 572, 2011 WL 1562777

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 2011

DocketED 94852

StatusPublished

This text of 341 S.W.3d 142 (State v. Kelly) 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. Kelly, 341 S.W.3d 142, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 572, 2011 WL 1562777 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keith Kelly (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered after a jury found him guilty of stealing over $500 and second-degree property damage. Defendant first contends that the trial court abused its discretion in: (1) denying his motion to dismiss for intentional destruction of exculpatory evidence; and (2) in the alternative, overruling his objection to exclude witnesses’ testimony identifying Defendant from a video surveillance tape. Second, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the State’s motion in limine preventing him from impeaching a State’s witness.

*143 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motions to dismiss for intention destruction of exculpatory evidence, denying Defendant’s motion to exclude witnesses’ testimony regarding the surveillance tape, and sustaining the State’s motion preventing Defendant from impeaching the State’s witness. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Keith Kelly (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered after a jury found him guilty of stealing over $500 and second-degree property damage. Defendant first contends that the trial court abused its discretion in: (1) denying his motion to dismiss for intentional destruction of exculpatory evidence; and (2) in the alternative, overruling his objection to exclude witnesses’ testimony identifying Defendant from a video surveillance tape. Second, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the State’s motion in limine preventing him from impeaching a State’s witness.

*143 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motions to dismiss for intention destruction of exculpatory evidence, denying Defendant’s motion to exclude witnesses’ testimony regarding the surveillance tape, and sustaining the State’s motion preventing Defendant from impeaching the State’s witness. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 142, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 572, 2011 WL 1562777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kelly-moctapp-2011.