State v. Shaw

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Shaw

482 S.W.3d 482, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 160, 2016 WL 720643

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102936

StatusPublished

This text of 482 S.W.3d 482 (State v. Shaw) 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. Shaw, 482 S.W.3d 482, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 160, 2016 WL 720643 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Reginald Shaw (“Defendant”) appeals from his conviction by a jury of one count of robbery in, the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo 2000. Defendant' argues the trial court abused its discretion when, it overruled his objections to the prosecutor’s questions of Bria Cotton about whether Montrel Williams had a gun and whether Cotton was afraid of him because the questions were irrelevant to the question of whether Defendant was guilty of the robbery and only served to bolster Cotton’s credibility improperly in the eyes of the jury- ' . '

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. An opinion reciting-the detailed facts and restating the principles of law .would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting1 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

Reginald Shaw (“Defendant”) appeals from his conviction by a jury of one count of robbery in, the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo 2000. Defendant' argues the trial court abused its discretion when, it overruled his objections to the prosecutor’s questions of Bria Cotton about whether Montrel Williams had a gun and whether Cotton was afraid of him because the questions were irrelevant to the question of whether Defendant was guilty of the robbery and only served to bolster Cotton’s credibility improperly in the eyes of the jury- ' . '

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. An opinion reciting-the detailed facts and restating the principles of law .would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting1 forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 482, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 160, 2016 WL 720643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shaw-moctapp-2016.