State v. Riggins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Riggins

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 21, 2012·No. ED 96380·Published

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).

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

Pincite

359 S.W.3d 540 (State v. Riggins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.