State v. Pitts

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Pitts

145 S.W.3d 855, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1438, 2004 WL 2221631

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 5, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83774

StatusPublished

This text of 145 S.W.3d 855 (State v. Pitts) 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. Pitts, 145 S.W.3d 855, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1438, 2004 WL 2221631 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kelly S. Pitts (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of methamphetamine paraphernalia with intent to use, and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant alleges trial court error in denying her motions to suppress evidence and statements and in denying her proffered alibi instruction. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motions to suppress evidence and statements because the evidence and statements were seized and obtained pursuant to the plain view and consensual search exceptions to the general search warrant rule. State v. Olson, 972 S.W.2d 359, 360 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). We also conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s proffered alibi instruction because Defendant did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that she was somewhere other than the place of commission, during the entire time of commission. State v. Poe, 857 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). 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.

Kelly S. Pitts (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of methamphetamine paraphernalia with intent to use, and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant alleges trial court error in denying her motions to suppress evidence and statements and in denying her proffered alibi instruction. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motions to suppress evidence and statements because the evidence and statements were seized and obtained pursuant to the plain view and consensual search exceptions to the general search warrant rule. State v. Olson, 972 S.W.2d 359, 360 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). We also conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s proffered alibi instruction because Defendant did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding that she was somewhere other than the place of commission, during the entire time of commission. State v. Poe, 857 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). 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)

145 S.W.3d 855, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1438, 2004 WL 2221631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pitts-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack