Legal Opinion

State v. Puckett

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 5, 2004No. ED 84533PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLawrence E. Mooney, P.J.

The defendant, Rachel Puckett, was charged by information with possession of anhydrous ammonia in a nonapproved container, section 578.154 RSMo. Supp.2001. The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court sustained. However, nowhere in the motion to suppress is there any claim that the police illegally obtained the evidence sought to be excluded, and the trial court’s order is premised on the defendant’s claim that she was entitled to exclusion of the evidence based on a statute regulating the handling of such evidence. 1 The State has filed an appeal, claiming that it…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. GalazinSupreme Court of Missouri · 2001
  2. State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1999
  3. State v. HolzschuhMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. State v. EisenhouerSupreme Court of Missouri · 2001
  5. State v. FosterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. DestefanoMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. State v. MoadMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. State v. McElvainMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. State v. LillyMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State v. BurnsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2011

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API