State v. Vaughn

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Vaughn

256 S.W.3d 150, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 650, 2008 WL 2019588

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 2008

DocketWD 68311

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 S.W.3d 150 (State v. Vaughn) 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. Vaughn, 256 S.W.3d 150, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 650, 2008 WL 2019588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Vaughn was convicted, after a jury trial, of delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211, and sentenced as a prior and persistent offender, to thirteen years. Vaughn contends that the trial court erred in denying his only request, asking for a mistrial after a police detective testified that he identified Vaughn from photographs of “local subjects involved with narcotics and that had been arrested in the area.” This court cannot conclude, in view of the attenuated nature of the statement and the quantum of evidence against Vaughn, that the statement played a decisive role in the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling Vaughn’s motion for a mistrial. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Vaughn was convicted, after a jury trial, of delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211, and sentenced as a prior and persistent offender, to thirteen years. Vaughn contends that the trial court erred in denying his only request, asking for a mistrial after a police detective testified that he identified Vaughn from photographs of “local subjects involved with narcotics and that had been arrested in the area.” This court cannot conclude, in view of the attenuated nature of the statement and the quantum of evidence against Vaughn, that the statement played a decisive role in the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling Vaughn’s motion for a mistrial. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.W.3d 150, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 650, 2008 WL 2019588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vaughn-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack