State v. Riggins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Riggins

359 S.W.3d 540, 2012 WL 549335

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2012

DocketED 96380

StatusPublished

This text of 359 S.W.3d 540 (State v. Riggins) 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. Riggins, 359 S.W.3d 540, 2012 WL 549335 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Riggins (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence after a jury convicted him of one count of first-degree robbery. Defendant argues the trial court erred by admitting both in-court and out-of-court identification evidence because such evidence was so unduly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification and render the identifications unreliable. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Stephen Riggins (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence after a jury convicted him of one count of first-degree robbery. Defendant argues the trial court erred by admitting both in-court and out-of-court identification evidence because such evidence was so unduly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification and render the identifications unreliable. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 S.W.3d 540, 2012 WL 549335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-riggins-moctapp-2012.