State v. Kohlheim

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kohlheim

401 S.W.3d 578, 2013 WL 3146864, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 726

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 18, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98416

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 401 S.W.3d 578 (State v. Kohlheim) 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. Kohlheim, 401 S.W.3d 578, 2013 WL 3146864, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 726 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dauda S. Kohlheim (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County after a jury found him guilty of second-degree statutory rape. Defendant claims the trial court plainly erred by: (1) allowing testimony that Defendant failed to provide an exculpatory statement to police after receiving warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); and (2) failing to declare a mistrial based on testimony related to Defendant’s post-Miranda silence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only 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.

Dauda S. Kohlheim (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County after a jury found him guilty of second-degree statutory rape. Defendant claims the trial court plainly erred by: (1) allowing testimony that Defendant failed to provide an exculpatory statement to police after receiving warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); and (2) failing to declare a mistrial based on testimony related to Defendant’s post-Miranda silence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 S.W.3d 578, 2013 WL 3146864, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kohlheim-moctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack