History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Wright
48 S.W.3d 111
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2001
|
Check Treatment

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Antonio McCown Wright, appeals his conviction for forgery in violation *112of Section 570.090, RSMo 2000. He contends the trial court plainly erred in permitting the prosecutor to ask improper questions during voir dire. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the trial court did not plainly err. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Wright
Court Name: Missouri Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jun 26, 2001
Citation: 48 S.W.3d 111
Docket Number: No. ED 77270
Court Abbreviation: Mo. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.