State v. Petering

196 S.W.3d 654, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1098, 2006 WL 1982915
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 18, 2006·No. No. WD 64748·Published

Opinion

[655] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Frank Petering was convicted, following a bench trial, of first-degree promotion of child pornography and second-degree promotion of child pornography. On appeal, he contends: (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant that was unsupported by probable cause; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for second-degree promotion of child pornography; and (3) the trial court plainly erred in admitting summaries of witness testimony, to which the parties had stipulated.

Upon review of the briefs of the record, we find no error and affirm the convictions. We have provided the parties with a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision because a published opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose.

AFFIRMED. Rule 30.25(b).

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

State v. Petering, 196 S.W.3d 654, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1098, 2006 WL 1982915 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

196 S.W.3d 654 (State v. Petering) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.