State v. Ray

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ray

303 S.W.3d 162, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 165, 2010 WL 528127

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

DocketED 92525

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 S.W.3d 162 (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, 303 S.W.3d 162, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 165, 2010 WL 528127 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Damien Ray (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding Appellant guilty of one count of first-degree robbery in violation of Section 569.020 1 and one count of armed *163 criminal action in violation of Section 571.015. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Appellant’s robbery victim’s out-of-court and in-court identifications of Appellant into evidence, because the identification procedures were not so unduly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification and render the identifications unreliable, nor was their admission prejudicial. See State v. Weaver, 912 S.W.2d 499 (Mo.banc 1995); State v. Chambers, 234 S.W.3d 501 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Damien Ray (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding Appellant guilty of one count of first-degree robbery in violation of Section 569.020 1 and one count of armed *163 criminal action in violation of Section 571.015. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Appellant’s robbery victim’s out-of-court and in-court identifications of Appellant into evidence, because the identification procedures were not so unduly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification and render the identifications unreliable, nor was their admission prejudicial. See State v. Weaver, 912 S.W.2d 499 (Mo.banc 1995); State v. Chambers, 234 S.W.3d 501 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.W.3d 162, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 165, 2010 WL 528127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ray-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack