State v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smith

510 S.W.3d 364, 2017 WL 490445, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 111

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 510 S.W.3d 364 (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, 510 S.W.3d 364, 2017 WL 490445, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 111 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Marcell Smith appeals his convictions by a St. Louis County jury of one count of first-degree robbery, one count of second-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action arising out of the robbery and shooting of Roosevelt Phillips, Jr. (“Victim”). Smith raises two points on appeal: 1) that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection to Smith calling Victim’s wife to testify at trial; and 2) that the trial court plainly eiTed in failing to sua sponte intervene during the State’s cross-examination of Tiffany Lindewirth. Finding no error, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25,

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Marcell Smith appeals his convictions by a St. Louis County jury of one count of first-degree robbery, one count of second-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action arising out of the robbery and shooting of Roosevelt Phillips, Jr. (“Victim”). Smith raises two points on appeal: 1) that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection to Smith calling Victim’s wife to testify at trial; and 2) that the trial court plainly eiTed in failing to sua sponte intervene during the State’s cross-examination of Tiffany Lindewirth. Finding no error, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 S.W.3d 364, 2017 WL 490445, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack