State v. Sanders
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
DANIEL E. SCOTT, Judge.
Appellant (“Defendant”) complains that he was not allowed to show that no fingerprints were found on cocaine baggies that he was found guilty of possessing. We review for abuse of discretion and find none; indeed, the offer of proof supports the trial court’s ruling. We affirm the judgment and conviction.
Background / Complaint on Appeal
The sufficiency of the evidence is not at issue. We view the record favorably to the result (State v. Colvin, 312 S.W.3d 436, 437 (Mo.App.2010)), borrowing to some degree from Defendant’s description of the facts.
Approaching from behind,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. SchneiderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1987
- State v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1983
- State v. MansfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1982
- State v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974
- State v. MillerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MICHAEL LEE HOLTMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
- STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MICHAEL LEE HOLTMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
- State v. MatzkeMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013