State v. Skaggs

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Skaggs

241 S.W.3d 421, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1726, 2007 WL 4392763

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

DocketED 89133

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 S.W.3d 421 (State v. Skaggs) 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. Skaggs, 241 S.W.3d 421, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1726, 2007 WL 4392763 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry W. Skaggs (“Skaggs”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action. Skaggs argues the trial court plainly erred in overruling defense counsel’s objection to Detective George Grove’s (“Detective Grove”) testimony as to what Mario Moran (“Moran”) told him because the testimony was hearsay and prejudicial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry W. Skaggs (“Skaggs”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action. Skaggs argues the trial court plainly erred in overruling defense counsel’s objection to Detective George Grove’s (“Detective Grove”) testimony as to what Mario Moran (“Moran”) told him because the testimony was hearsay and prejudicial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.W.3d 421, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1726, 2007 WL 4392763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-skaggs-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack