State v. Stout

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Stout

342 S.W.3d 438, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 835, 2011 WL 2313783

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 2011

DocketWD 72633

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 S.W.3d 438 (State v. Stout) 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. Stout, 342 S.W.3d 438, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 835, 2011 WL 2313783 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*439 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Donny Stout was convicted in the Boone County Circuit Court of first-degree statutory sodomy and child abuse. On appeal, Stout argues: first, that the trial court plainly erred in failing to suppress photographs admitted into evidence on the basis that the underlying search warrant was not supported by probable cause; and second, that the trial court erroneously failed to declare a mistrial after the State inquired on cross-examination whether Stout had served time in prison for a prior conviction. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

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

*439 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Donny Stout was convicted in the Boone County Circuit Court of first-degree statutory sodomy and child abuse. On appeal, Stout argues: first, that the trial court plainly erred in failing to suppress photographs admitted into evidence on the basis that the underlying search warrant was not supported by probable cause; and second, that the trial court erroneously failed to declare a mistrial after the State inquired on cross-examination whether Stout had served time in prison for a prior conviction. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 438, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 835, 2011 WL 2313783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stout-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack