OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Larry Hopkins, Defendant/Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Larry Hopkins, Defendant/
Respondent
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Larry Hopkins, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: 73286 Handdown Date: 09/15/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Michael P. David Counsel for Appellant: Gwenda Robinson Counsel for Respondent: Catherine Chatman Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. J. Dowd, P.J., Crahan and Teitelman, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Defendant Larry Hopkins appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of first degree murder, in violation of section 565.020 RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo 1994. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial based on the prosecutor's alleged failure to timely disclose evidence. In addition, defendant requests plain error review of the trial court's allowing the deputy chief medical examiner of the City of St. Louis to testify as to the findings contained in the autopsy report written by the chief medical examiner of the City of St. Louis without proper foundation that the chief medical examiner was qualified as an expert in his field. We have examined the briefs and the record on appeal. We find no manifest injustice. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would serve no precedential or jurisprudential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.