State v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smith

278 S.W.3d 717, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 702, 2009 WL 792075

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

DocketED 90903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 S.W.3d 717 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 278 S.W.3d 717, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 702, 2009 WL 792075 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mario Smith appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable Edward Sweeney, Jr. presiding, after a jury found him guilty of one count of identity theft, § 570.223 RSMo. (2000). Smith’s sole claim of error is that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting Smith’s counsel’s cross-examination of one of the State’s witnesses. The witness had stated the nature of his prior convictions, and the trial court then sustained the State’s objection to the relevance of further questioning concerning those convictions.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. Thus, a written opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mario Smith appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable Edward Sweeney, Jr. presiding, after a jury found him guilty of one count of identity theft, § 570.223 RSMo. (2000). Smith’s sole claim of error is that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting Smith’s counsel’s cross-examination of one of the State’s witnesses. The witness had stated the nature of his prior convictions, and the trial court then sustained the State’s objection to the relevance of further questioning concerning those convictions.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. Thus, a written opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W.3d 717, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 702, 2009 WL 792075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack