State v. Mansfield

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mansfield

269 S.W.3d 46, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1485, 2008 WL 4901746

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 12, 2008

DocketED 90684

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 S.W.3d 46 (State v. Mansfield) 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. Mansfield, 269 S.W.3d 46, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1485, 2008 WL 4901746 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Glenn Mansfield (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found Appellant guilty of distributing a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.211 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Appellant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court committed plain error when it admitted a still photograph which was derived from a videotape in violation of the best evidence rule.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no error, plain or otherwise. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Glenn Mansfield (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found Appellant guilty of distributing a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.211 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Appellant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court committed plain error when it admitted a still photograph which was derived from a videotape in violation of the best evidence rule.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no error, plain or otherwise. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.W.3d 46, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1485, 2008 WL 4901746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mansfield-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack