State v. Reed

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Reed

484 S.W.3d 822, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 65, 2016 WL 418224

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 2, 2016

DocketNo. ED100510

StatusPublished

This text of 484 S.W.3d 822 (State v. Reed) 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. Reed, 484 S.W.3d 822, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 65, 2016 WL 418224 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Joe Reed appeals his convictions following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action. In his three points on appeal, Reed contends that the trial court plainly erred (1) by excluding the public from a portion of his trial after a juror expressed fear due to the presence in the courtroom of members of Reed’s family and his former co-defendant; (2) by failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial due to the juror’s concerns; and (3) by overruling Reed’s motion to suppress evidence identifying Reed as a suspect in the crimes. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not plainly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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

Joe Reed appeals his convictions following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action. In his three points on appeal, Reed contends that the trial court plainly erred (1) by excluding the public from a portion of his trial after a juror expressed fear due to the presence in the courtroom of members of Reed’s family and his former co-defendant; (2) by failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial due to the juror’s concerns; and (3) by overruling Reed’s motion to suppress evidence identifying Reed as a suspect in the crimes. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not plainly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 S.W.3d 822, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 65, 2016 WL 418224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reed-moctapp-2016.