State v. Orr

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Orr

520 S.W.3d 826, 2017 WL 2644045, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 606

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104428

StatusPublished

This text of 520 S.W.3d 826 (State v. Orr) 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. Orr, 520 S.W.3d 826, 2017 WL 2644045, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 606 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Orr (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction of one count of class B felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of § 195.211 (Count I) and one count of class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.202 (Count II). Defendant claims the trial court plain[827]*827ly erred in admitting the substance testing conclusions of the State’s criminalist ■witness Ms. Karen Fox and her lab report concerning State’s Exhibits 1-A and 1-B. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Clarence Orr (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction of one count of class B felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of § 195.211 (Count I) and one count of class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.202 (Count II). Defendant claims the trial court plain[827]*827ly erred in admitting the substance testing conclusions of the State’s criminalist ■witness Ms. Karen Fox and her lab report concerning State’s Exhibits 1-A and 1-B. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 S.W.3d 826, 2017 WL 2644045, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-orr-moctapp-2017.