OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Henry Loftis, Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Henry Loftis
Respondent
State of Missouri

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 Western District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Henry Loftis, Appellant. Case Number: No. 53103 Handdown Date: 09/23/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Clay County, Hon. J. Michael Maloney Counsel for Appellant: Rosemary E. Percival Counsel for Respondent: Jill C. LaHue Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Stith, P.J., Breckenridge and Hanna, JJ., concur. Opinion: O R D E R Henry Loftis appeals from his convictions for first-degree pharmacy robbery, section 569.025, RSMo 1994, first- degree burglary, section 569.160, RSMo 1994, attempted first-degree robbery, sections 564.011 and 569.020, RSMo 1994, and two counts of armed criminal action, section 571.015, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced Mr. Loftis, as a prior and persistent offender, to a total prison term of sixty years. On appeal, Mr. Loftis contends that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting exhibits for which the State did not lay a proper foundation; and (2) overruling his objection to the State's closing argument because the State made an improper reference to his failure to testify. Mr. Loftis also contends that the trial court plainly erred by allowing hearsay testimony. The judgment of the trial court is 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.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.