State v. Pryor

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Pryor

449 S.W.3d 833, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1392, 2014 WL 7174336

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 16, 2014·No. No. ED 101064·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Fletcher Pryor (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of first-degree child molestation, Section 566.067, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2006, first-degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062, and attempted first-degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062. Defendant contends the trial court: (1) erred in precluding him from questioning Elizabeth Stonefield, an employee of the Children’s Division, as to the victim’s responses to Detective Mathias Backer’s questions asking whether Defendant had touched her, shown her pictures, or committed other sexual acts against her; and (2) abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for a mistrial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Fletcher Pryor (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of first-degree child molestation, Section 566.067, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2006, first-degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062, and attempted first-degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062. Defendant contends the trial court: (1) erred in precluding him from questioning Elizabeth Stonefield, an employee of the Children’s Division, as to the victim’s responses to Detective Mathias Backer’s questions asking whether Defendant had touched her, shown her pictures, or committed other sexual acts against her; and (2) abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for a mistrial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Pryor, 449 S.W.3d 833, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1392, 2014 WL 7174336 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

449 S.W.3d 833 (State v. Pryor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.