State v. Sands

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Sands

530 S.W.3d 614

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104713

StatusPublished

This text of 530 S.W.3d 614 (State v. Sands) 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. Sands, 530 S.W.3d 614 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Deveis Sands (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the circuit court of the City of St. Louis following a jury trial convicting him of one count of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, and two counts of armed criminal action.- Appellant argues the trial court plainly erred when it failed to sua sponte 1) strike a witness’s non-responsive hearsay statement, and 2) strike an expert witness’s testimony for insufficient foundation. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended 'opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Deveis Sands (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the circuit court of the City of St. Louis following a jury trial convicting him of one count of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, and two counts of armed criminal action.- Appellant argues the trial court plainly erred when it failed to sua sponte 1) strike a witness’s non-responsive hearsay statement, and 2) strike an expert witness’s testimony for insufficient foundation. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended 'opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 S.W.3d 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sands-moctapp-2017.