State v. Lucas

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lucas

992 S.W.2d 353, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 714, 1999 WL 326099

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 25, 1999

DocketNo. 74692

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 992 S.W.2d 353 (State v. Lucas) 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. Lucas, 992 S.W.2d 353, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 714, 1999 WL 326099 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after conviction and sentence as a prior offender for committing violence to an employee of the Department of Corrections, a class C felony. Section 217.385 RSMo 1994. His points are not reviewable. They are without merit.

A ruling granting a motion in limine is not appealable. State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584, 592 (Mo. banc 1992). A ruling sustaining an objection to a question Defendant addressed to his own witness is not appealable in the absence of an offer of [354]*354proof. Id. There was no offer of proof. Further, this point was not preserved in Defendant’s motion for new trial. Defendant did not object to the State’s closing argument that his defense made no sense. His claim of plain error is not supported by fact or law. State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 896, 115 S.Ct. 250, 130 L.Ed.2d 172 (1994).

No jurisprudential would be served by an extended opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after conviction and sentence as a prior offender for committing violence to an employee of the Department of Corrections, a class C felony. Section 217.385 RSMo 1994. His points are not reviewable. They are without merit.

A ruling granting a motion in limine is not appealable. State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584, 592 (Mo. banc 1992). A ruling sustaining an objection to a question Defendant addressed to his own witness is not appealable in the absence of an offer of [354]*354proof. Id. There was no offer of proof. Further, this point was not preserved in Defendant’s motion for new trial. Defendant did not object to the State’s closing argument that his defense made no sense. His claim of plain error is not supported by fact or law. State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 896, 115 S.Ct. 250, 130 L.Ed.2d 172 (1994).

No jurisprudential would be served by an extended opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

992 S.W.2d 353, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 714, 1999 WL 326099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lucas-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack