State v. Russell

169 S.W.3d 883, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1275, 2005 WL 2076728
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Russell. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 524
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 30, 2005·No. ED 84988·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael A. Russell (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of trafficking in the second degree. Defendant alleges trial court error in denying his motions to suppress evidence and statements. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the challenged evidence and statements were not “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err in denying Defendant’s motions to suppress evidence and statements. See State v. Whitaker, 101 S.W.3d 332, 333 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

State v. Russell, 169 S.W.3d 883, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1275, 2005 WL 2076728 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

169 S.W.3d 883 (State v. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Whitaker
101 S.W.3d 332 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003)