State v. Randall

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Randall

190 S.W.3d 535, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 524, 2006 WL 1072071

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 25, 2006

DocketED 86311

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 535 (State v. Randall) 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. Randall, 190 S.W.3d 535, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 524, 2006 WL 1072071 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Randall (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis convicting him of one count of second degree murder and one count of armed criminal action. Defendant raises two points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the admission of Detective Webb’s testimony on the grounds of hearsay, and (2) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the admission of Detective Webb’s testimony on the grounds that it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no trial *536 court error appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm 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.

Gerald Randall (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis convicting him of one count of second degree murder and one count of armed criminal action. Defendant raises two points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the admission of Detective Webb’s testimony on the grounds of hearsay, and (2) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the admission of Detective Webb’s testimony on the grounds that it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no trial *536 court error appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 535, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 524, 2006 WL 1072071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-randall-moctapp-2006.