State v. Ross

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ross

489 S.W.3d 847, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 224, 2016 WL 1157631

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102416

StatusPublished

This text of 489 S.W.3d 847 (State v. Ross) 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. Ross, 489 S.W.3d 847, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 224, 2016 WL 1157631 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Antawan Ross was convicted after a jury trial of murder in the second degree and armed criminal action arising out of an altercation between Ross and Deshon Randolph that resulted in Ross shooting and killing Randolph in the bedroom of Nikia Knight’s home in St. Louis County. On appeal, Ross claims the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte correct the prosecutor’s improper closing argument and in failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial. Finding’no plain error, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. 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

Antawan Ross was convicted after a jury trial of murder in the second degree and armed criminal action arising out of an altercation between Ross and Deshon Randolph that resulted in Ross shooting and killing Randolph in the bedroom of Nikia Knight’s home in St. Louis County. On appeal, Ross claims the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte correct the prosecutor’s improper closing argument and in failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial. Finding’no plain error, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. 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)

489 S.W.3d 847, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 224, 2016 WL 1157631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ross-moctapp-2016.