State v. Quehl

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Quehl

540 S.W.3d 880

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 2018

DocketWD 80012

StatusPublished

This text of 540 S.W.3d 880 (State v. Quehl) 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. Quehl, 540 S.W.3d 880 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

William Quehl appeals his conviction following a jury trial for the class B felony of driving while intoxicated, *881section 577.010, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2010, and sentence of eight years imprisonment. He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and admitting at trial evidence of his blood alcohol content because the State failed to show the existence of exigent circumstances to draw his blood without a warrant following his refusal. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

William Quehl appeals his conviction following a jury trial for the class B felony of driving while intoxicated, *881section 577.010, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2010, and sentence of eight years imprisonment. He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and admitting at trial evidence of his blood alcohol content because the State failed to show the existence of exigent circumstances to draw his blood without a warrant following his refusal. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 S.W.3d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-quehl-moctapp-2018.