State v. Olinger

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Olinger

233 S.W.3d 768, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1294, 2007 WL 2769449

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

DocketED 88745

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 768, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1294, 2007 WL 2769449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-olinger-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack