State v. Rash

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rash

89 S.W.3d 526, 2002 WL 1163031

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2002

DocketED 79178

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.W.3d 526 (State v. Rash) 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. Rash, 89 S.W.3d 526, 2002 WL 1163031 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dedric Rash, defendant, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County following his conviction by a jury of attempted kidnapping, sections 564.011 and 565.110 RSMo (2000) (all further references shall be to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise noted), and robbery in the second-degree, section 569.030. In his sole point on appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the state’s Motion In Limine and refusing to permit defendant’s counsel to make an opening statement outlining for the jury the factual evidence that would be elicited from the state’s witnesses.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential value. We affirm the judgment 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.

Dedric Rash, defendant, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County following his conviction by a jury of attempted kidnapping, sections 564.011 and 565.110 RSMo (2000) (all further references shall be to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise noted), and robbery in the second-degree, section 569.030. In his sole point on appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the state’s Motion In Limine and refusing to permit defendant’s counsel to make an opening statement outlining for the jury the factual evidence that would be elicited from the state’s witnesses.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.W.3d 526, 2002 WL 1163031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rash-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack