State v. Polhmann

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Polhmann

948 S.W.2d 257, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1252, 1997 WL 369924

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 8, 1997

DocketNo. 72446

StatusPublished

This text of 948 S.W.2d 257 (State v. Polhmann) 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. Polhmann, 948 S.W.2d 257, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1252, 1997 WL 369924 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The state filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to See. 547.200.1(2), RSMo 1994, to review the action of the trial court in granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

Our review of a motion to suppress is limited to a determination of whether the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s order. State v. Lanear, 805 S.W.2d 713, 715 (Mo.App.1991). “If the trial court’s ruling is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety this court may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” State v. Smith, 926 S.W.2d 689, 692 (Mo.App.1996). Deference is given to the trial court’s superi- or opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh the evidence. Id.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and find that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s order. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended written opinion. Rule 30.25(b).

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The state filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to See. 547.200.1(2), RSMo 1994, to review the action of the trial court in granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

Our review of a motion to suppress is limited to a determination of whether the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s order. State v. Lanear, 805 S.W.2d 713, 715 (Mo.App.1991). “If the trial court’s ruling is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety this court may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” State v. Smith, 926 S.W.2d 689, 692 (Mo.App.1996). Deference is given to the trial court’s superi- or opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh the evidence. Id.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and find that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s order. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended written opinion. Rule 30.25(b).

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

948 S.W.2d 257, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1252, 1997 WL 369924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-polhmann-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack