State v. Lowery

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lowery

276 S.W.3d 860, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 67, 2009 WL 580239

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 13, 2009

DocketWD 68941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 S.W.3d 860 (State v. Lowery) 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. Lowery, 276 S.W.3d 860, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 67, 2009 WL 580239 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Lowery appeals his conviction for distribution of a controlled substance, Section 195.211, 1 after a trial by jury. Lowery contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to sustain his objection during closing arguments when the prosecutor referenced excluded evidence, thereby resulting in prejudice and an unfair trial. Because the prosecutor’s reference to excluded evidence did not involve intentional misrepresentations of fact, and the strength of other evidence is not at issue, such a reference did not result in prejudice to Lowery.

As a published opinion in this case would be without precedential value, a memorandum explaining the court’s reasoning has been provided to the parties. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. 2003 unless otherwise specified.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Lowery appeals his conviction for distribution of a controlled substance, Section 195.211, 1 after a trial by jury. Lowery contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to sustain his objection during closing arguments when the prosecutor referenced excluded evidence, thereby resulting in prejudice and an unfair trial. Because the prosecutor’s reference to excluded evidence did not involve intentional misrepresentations of fact, and the strength of other evidence is not at issue, such a reference did not result in prejudice to Lowery.

As a published opinion in this case would be without precedential value, a memorandum explaining the court’s reasoning has been provided to the parties. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. 2003 unless otherwise specified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.W.3d 860, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 67, 2009 WL 580239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lowery-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack