State v. Morse

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Morse

413 S.W.3d 387, 2013 WL 5988938, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1333

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 12, 2013·No. No. ED 98741·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harold Morse appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of one count of concealing a prohibited article in a correctional facility. We find the trial court did not err in admitting testimony about the statement Morse made claiming ownership of the weapon found in his cell. Additionally, we find the trial court did not err in conducting voir dire. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. [388] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harold Morse appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of one count of concealing a prohibited article in a correctional facility. We find the trial court did not err in admitting testimony about the statement Morse made claiming ownership of the weapon found in his cell. Additionally, we find the trial court did not err in conducting voir dire. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. [388] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Morse, 413 S.W.3d 387, 2013 WL 5988938, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1333 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

413 S.W.3d 387 (State v. Morse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related