State v. Olinger

233 S.W.3d 768, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1294, 2007 WL 2769449
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 25, 2007·No. ED 88745·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Olinger appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of one count of possessing a methamphetamine precursor drug with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of Section 195.246. 1

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err in admitting a photograph depicting an open case of matches which were later destroyed by police officers. State v. Galazin, 58 S.W.3d 500 507 (Mo. banc 2001). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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

State v. Olinger, 233 S.W.3d 768, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1294, 2007 WL 2769449 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

233 S.W.3d 768 (State v. Olinger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mondaine v. State
233 S.W.3d 768 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)