State v. Ray

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ray

186 S.W.3d 284, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1474, 2005 WL 2542542

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 2005

DocketED 85566

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 S.W.3d 284 (State v. Ray) 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. Ray, 186 S.W.3d 284, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1474, 2005 WL 2542542 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ricky E. Ray (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after a jury convicted him of murder in the first degree, Section 565.020 RSMo (2000). Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial in response to the State’s withholding of a witness’s statement which inculpated Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to grant a mistrial. State v. Wallace, 43 S.W.3d 398, 402 (Mo. App. E.D.2001). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Ricky E. Ray (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after a jury convicted him of murder in the first degree, Section 565.020 RSMo (2000). Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial in response to the State’s withholding of a witness’s statement which inculpated Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to grant a mistrial. State v. Wallace, 43 S.W.3d 398, 402 (Mo. App. E.D.2001). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 S.W.3d 284, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1474, 2005 WL 2542542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ray-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack