Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 11, 2017No. SC 95461Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Laura Denvir Stith, Judge,

concurring and dissenting. ■

While I concur with the holdings in Sections I and III in the majority opinion, I dissent from the holding in Section II-that this Court’s decision in State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), applies to charges of felony stealing of $500 or more but less than $25,000 under, section 570.030.3d).1.

*234The majority’s holding is based on the premise that the elements of the offense of stealing $500 or more are set out solely in section 570.030.1, which states in relevant part, “A person commits the crime of stealing if he or she…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. State of Missouri v. Amanda N. BazellSupreme Court of Missouri · 2016
  5. Bachtel v. Miller County Nursing Home DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003

14 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