State v. Zych

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Zych

14 S.W.3d 657, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 394, 2000 WL 289722

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 2000

DocketNo. ED 76237

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 S.W.3d 657 (State v. Zych) 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. Zych, 14 S.W.3d 657, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 394, 2000 WL 289722 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lisa Zych (“Defendant”) appeals from a judgment of conviction of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of Section 565.021,¹ and Armed Criminal Action, in violation of Section 571.015. Defendant alleges the trial court plainly erred in not declaring a mistrial, sua sponte, due to the admission of prior uncharged misconduct evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice will occur if the error is not corrected. State v. Knese, 985 S.W.2d 759, 770 (Mo. banc 1999). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lisa Zych (“Defendant”) appeals from a judgment of conviction of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of Section 565.021,¹ and Armed Criminal Action, in violation of Section 571.015. Defendant alleges the trial court plainly erred in not declaring a mistrial, sua sponte, due to the admission of prior uncharged misconduct evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice will occur if the error is not corrected. State v. Knese, 985 S.W.2d 759, 770 (Mo. banc 1999). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.W.3d 657, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 394, 2000 WL 289722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-zych-moctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack