State v. McDILE

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McDILE

232 S.W.3d 603, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1213, 2007 WL 2471521

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 4, 2007

DocketED 88122

StatusPublished

This text of 232 S.W.3d 603 (State v. McDILE) 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. McDILE, 232 S.W.3d 603, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1213, 2007 WL 2471521 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony McDile (Defendant) appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of one count of involuntary manslaughter in violation of Section 565.024. 1 and one count of armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not: 1) plainly err in permitting the prosecutor to question witnesses, adduce testimony and present arguments about Defendant’s post-arrest silence; 2) clearly err in overruling Defendant’s objections to the State’s use of peremptory strikes to remove certain venire-persons from the venire; or 3) abuse its discretion in allowing the State to elicit testimony from certain witnesses regarding out-of-court statements made by an unidentified female caller. See State v. Anthony, 857 S.W.2d 861, 868 (Mo.App. W.D.1993) (post-arrest silence); State v. Taylor, 18 S.W.3d 366, 370 (Mo. banc 2000) (intentional racial discrimination); State v. Hutchison, 957 S.W.2d 757, 761 (Mo.1997) (hearsay). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise stated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony McDile (Defendant) appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of one count of involuntary manslaughter in violation of Section 565.024. 1 and one count of armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not: 1) plainly err in permitting the prosecutor to question witnesses, adduce testimony and present arguments about Defendant’s post-arrest silence; 2) clearly err in overruling Defendant’s objections to the State’s use of peremptory strikes to remove certain venire-persons from the venire; or 3) abuse its discretion in allowing the State to elicit testimony from certain witnesses regarding out-of-court statements made by an unidentified female caller. See State v. Anthony, 857 S.W.2d 861, 868 (Mo.App. W.D.1993) (post-arrest silence); State v. Taylor, 18 S.W.3d 366, 370 (Mo. banc 2000) (intentional racial discrimination); State v. Hutchison, 957 S.W.2d 757, 761 (Mo.1997) (hearsay). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise stated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 S.W.3d 603, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1213, 2007 WL 2471521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcdile-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack