State v. Rozier

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rozier

505 S.W.3d 378, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1222, 2016 WL 6956751

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103419

StatusPublished

This text of 505 S.W.3d 378 (State v. Rozier) 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. Rozier, 505 S.W.3d 378, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1222, 2016 WL 6956751 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Rozier appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. There was no error in admitting the entire, unredacted videotaped statement of a witness, in overruling the prosecutor’s questions posed to Appellant about why he had a gun, when it was loaded, and with how many bullets and in overruling the motion for judgment of acquittal and accepting the guilty verdicts. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any 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.

Steven Rozier appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. There was no error in admitting the entire, unredacted videotaped statement of a witness, in overruling the prosecutor’s questions posed to Appellant about why he had a gun, when it was loaded, and with how many bullets and in overruling the motion for judgment of acquittal and accepting the guilty verdicts. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any 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)

505 S.W.3d 378, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1222, 2016 WL 6956751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rozier-moctapp-2016.