State v. Lindsey

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lindsey

309 S.W.3d 873, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 614, 2010 WL 1860038

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 2010

DocketED 93645

StatusPublished

This text of 309 S.W.3d 873 (State v. Lindsey) 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. Lindsey, 309 S.W.3d 873, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 614, 2010 WL 1860038 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Torrey Lindsey appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree trafficking. We find that the trial court did not err in overruling Lindsey’s objection to testimony regarding an anonymous tip, nor did the court err in excluding certain testimony at trial. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Torrey Lindsey appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree trafficking. We find that the trial court did not err in overruling Lindsey’s objection to testimony regarding an anonymous tip, nor did the court err in excluding certain testimony at trial. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 S.W.3d 873, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 614, 2010 WL 1860038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lindsey-moctapp-2010.