State v. Phillips

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Phillips

185 S.W.3d 783, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 270, 2006 WL 538972

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86250

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.W.3d 783 (State v. Phillips) 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. Phillips, 185 S.W.3d 783, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 270, 2006 WL 538972 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Phillips (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of forcible rape, kidnapping, and two counts of second-degree robbery. Defendant alleges the trial court abused its discretion in excluding certain testimony and plainly erred in failing to sua sponte intervene during certain cross-examination of Defendant. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection to certain testimony and did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte intervene during cross-examination of Defendant. 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.

Curtis Phillips (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of forcible rape, kidnapping, and two counts of second-degree robbery. Defendant alleges the trial court abused its discretion in excluding certain testimony and plainly erred in failing to sua sponte intervene during certain cross-examination of Defendant. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection to certain testimony and did not plainly err in failing to sua sponte intervene during cross-examination of Defendant. 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)

185 S.W.3d 783, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 270, 2006 WL 538972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-phillips-moctapp-2006.