State v. Sutton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Sutton

236 S.W.3d 650, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1169, 2007 WL 2363591

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 21, 2007

DocketED 88504

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 S.W.3d 650 (State v. Sutton) 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. Sutton, 236 S.W.3d 650, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1169, 2007 WL 2363591 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*651 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leandre Sutton appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of felony trafficking in the second degree and the misdemeanor of possessing drug paraphernalia. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sutton’s request for a mistrial after a police detective referred to uncharged crimes during his testimony. We also find that the trial court did not plainly err in allowing testimony about the confidential informant’s out-of-court statements.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

*651 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leandre Sutton appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of felony trafficking in the second degree and the misdemeanor of possessing drug paraphernalia. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sutton’s request for a mistrial after a police detective referred to uncharged crimes during his testimony. We also find that the trial court did not plainly err in allowing testimony about the confidential informant’s out-of-court statements.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.W.3d 650, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1169, 2007 WL 2363591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sutton-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack