State v. Roberson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Roberson

241 S.W.3d 841, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1767, 2007 WL 4530822

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 26, 2007

DocketED 89096

StatusPublished

This text of 241 S.W.3d 841 (State v. Roberson) 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. Roberson, 241 S.W.3d 841, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1767, 2007 WL 4530822 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Roberson (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of one count of first-degree murder and one count of armed criminal action. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence and it abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence. Defendant also argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion in excluding Ruthie Williams’s (“Williams”) testimony from the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Roberson (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of one count of first-degree murder and one count of armed criminal action. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence and it abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence. Defendant also argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion in excluding Ruthie Williams’s (“Williams”) testimony from the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.W.3d 841, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1767, 2007 WL 4530822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roberson-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack