State v. Kyle

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kyle

359 S.W.3d 129, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1734, 2011 WL 6755978

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 2011

DocketWD 73733

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 359 S.W.3d 129 (State v. Kyle) 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. Kyle, 359 S.W.3d 129, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1734, 2011 WL 6755978 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Stacy Renee Kyle was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by a Highway Patrol officer for speeding. After the driver consented to a search, the officer recovered marijuana from the glove compartment. Kyle was convicted of possession of up to thirty-five grams of marijuana. She appeals, arguing that the officer’s testimony as to the driver’s statement of consent was inadmissible hearsay, and that the driver’s consent to search was ineffective, because it was given only after the stop should have legally concluded. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this *130 order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Stacy Renee Kyle was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by a Highway Patrol officer for speeding. After the driver consented to a search, the officer recovered marijuana from the glove compartment. Kyle was convicted of possession of up to thirty-five grams of marijuana. She appeals, arguing that the officer’s testimony as to the driver’s statement of consent was inadmissible hearsay, and that the driver’s consent to search was ineffective, because it was given only after the stop should have legally concluded. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this *130 order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 S.W.3d 129, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1734, 2011 WL 6755978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kyle-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack