State v. Spitler

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Spitler

513 S.W.3d 411, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 180, 2017 WL 1055656

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 2017

DocketWD 79285

StatusPublished

This text of 513 S.W.3d 411 (State v. Spitler) 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. Spitler, 513 S.W.3d 411, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 180, 2017 WL 1055656 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Cass County, Appellant Philip [412]*412Spitler was convicted of one count of felony first-degree property damage and one count of misdemeanor stealing. The convictions were based on an accomplice-liability theory. Spitler appeals. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his first-degree property damage conviction, because there was no evidence that he knew that the principal offender intended to damage the property at issue. Spitler also contends that the trial court plainly erred in failing to declare a mistrial, or instruct the jury to disregard, following the eiToneous admission of a hearsay statement by his co-perpetrator implicating Spitler. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Cass County, Appellant Philip [412]*412Spitler was convicted of one count of felony first-degree property damage and one count of misdemeanor stealing. The convictions were based on an accomplice-liability theory. Spitler appeals. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his first-degree property damage conviction, because there was no evidence that he knew that the principal offender intended to damage the property at issue. Spitler also contends that the trial court plainly erred in failing to declare a mistrial, or instruct the jury to disregard, following the eiToneous admission of a hearsay statement by his co-perpetrator implicating Spitler. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 S.W.3d 411, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 180, 2017 WL 1055656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-spitler-moctapp-2017.