State v. Reynolds

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Reynolds

155 S.W.3d 788, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 81, 2005 WL 89290

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 18, 2005

DocketNo. ED 83984

StatusPublished

This text of 155 S.W.3d 788 (State v. Reynolds) 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. Reynolds, 155 S.W.3d 788, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 81, 2005 WL 89290 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andre Reynolds appeals the judgment entered on his conviction for drug trafficking. He claims that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay and by repeatedly instructing the jury to continue deliberating and failing to give a “hammer instruction” or declare a mistrial sua sponte.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error of [789]*789law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have, however, been provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andre Reynolds appeals the judgment entered on his conviction for drug trafficking. He claims that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay and by repeatedly instructing the jury to continue deliberating and failing to give a “hammer instruction” or declare a mistrial sua sponte.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error of [789]*789law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have, however, been provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.W.3d 788, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 81, 2005 WL 89290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reynolds-moctapp-2005.