State v. Mann

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mann

347 S.W.3d 615, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 989, 2011 WL 3107804

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 26, 2011

DocketED 95205

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 347 S.W.3d 615 (State v. Mann) 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. Mann, 347 S.W.3d 615, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 989, 2011 WL 3107804 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian Mann (Defendant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree assault, one count of first-degree robbery, and four counts of armed criminal action. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress and admitting identification evidence from an eyewitness, Vidyasagar Gado; and abused its discretion in: (2) precluding Defendant from introducing evidence regarding the lack of the victims’ blood and DNA on Defendant’s pants and shoes; (3) precluding Defendant from introducing evidence regarding Timothy Boykins; and (4) admitting evidence of Senobia Cross’s oral statement to the prosecutor prior to trial that Defendant was wearing the same camouflage jacket as the shooter in the surveillance video.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not either err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress or abuse its discretion in precluding Defendant from introducing Mr. Gado’s identification evidence and evidence of Mr. Boykins, and admitting evidence of Ms. Cross’s oral statement to the prosecutor. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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.

Brian Mann (Defendant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree assault, one count of first-degree robbery, and four counts of armed criminal action. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress and admitting identification evidence from an eyewitness, Vidyasagar Gado; and abused its discretion in: (2) precluding Defendant from introducing evidence regarding the lack of the victims’ blood and DNA on Defendant’s pants and shoes; (3) precluding Defendant from introducing evidence regarding Timothy Boykins; and (4) admitting evidence of Senobia Cross’s oral statement to the prosecutor prior to trial that Defendant was wearing the same camouflage jacket as the shooter in the surveillance video.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not either err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress or abuse its discretion in precluding Defendant from introducing Mr. Gado’s identification evidence and evidence of Mr. Boykins, and admitting evidence of Ms. Cross’s oral statement to the prosecutor. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 615, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 989, 2011 WL 3107804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mann-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack