State v. Perrin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Perrin

179 S.W.3d 479, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1872, 2005 WL 3470283

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 86035

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W.3d 479 (State v. Perrin) 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. Perrin, 179 S.W.3d 479, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1872, 2005 WL 3470283 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ryan Perrin (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant alleges trial court error in refusing to admit into evidence a certain exhibit and in refusing to allow a certain line of questioning of a State witness by Defendant. Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the record contained sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of DWI and possession of a controlled substance. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). We also conclude that *480 the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. State v. Uka, 25 S.WM 624, 627 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ryan Perrin (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant alleges trial court error in refusing to admit into evidence a certain exhibit and in refusing to allow a certain line of questioning of a State witness by Defendant. Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the record contained sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of DWI and possession of a controlled substance. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). We also conclude that *480 the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. State v. Uka, 25 S.WM 624, 627 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 479, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1872, 2005 WL 3470283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perrin-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack