Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. David B. Weiss, Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-b-weiss-appellant-19346
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=19346
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+David+B.+Weiss%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Respondent, v. David B. Weiss, Appellant.
Case Number:  No. 53687
Handdown Date:  08/26/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Johnson County, Hon. Mary Ellen Young
Counsel for Appellant:  Irene Karns
Counsel for Respondent:  Vicky L. Anthony and David A. Meyer
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Smart, P.J.; Lowenstein and Stith, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Appellant David B. Weiss appeals his convictions for unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest claiming that 
the trial court erred in failing to  sua sponte  grant a mistrial when officers testified, without objection, that Mr. Weiss 
continued to threaten them after being arrested for resisting arrest.  We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the 
record on appeal.  Finding no miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice, we affirm.  Because a published opinion would 
have no precedential value, we affirm by this summary order, but we have furnished the parties with a memorandum 
setting forth our reasoning.
Judgment affirmed.  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.