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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Susan M. Moore, 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-susan-m-moore-appellant-18206
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=18206
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.+Susan+M.+Moore%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&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: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## 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. Susan M. Moore, Appellant.
Case Number:  52809
Handdown Date:  11/18/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Saline County, Hon. Robert H. Ravenhill
Counsel for Appellant:  Susan McGraugh
Counsel for Respondent:  Philip M. Koppe
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ulrich, C.J., P.J., Stith and Smith, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Susan M. Moore appeals from her conviction of distribution of a controlled substance near a school, section 
195.214, RSMo 1994, and possession of a controlled substance, section 195.202, RSMo 1994.   Ms. Moore was 
sentenced as a prior offender, section 558.016, RSMo 1994, to concurrent terms of fifteen and seven years imprisonment, 
respectively.  She claims four points of error allegedly made during trial:  (1) the trial court failed to exclude sua sponte an 
alleged hearsay statement; (2) her defense counsel questioned her about alleged privileged communications in court; (3) 
the trial court did not exclude sua sponte police testimony about known drug users visiting Ms. Moore at the scene of her 
arrest; and (4) the verdict finding instruction was erroneous.
The judgment of convictions 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.