Missouri Court of Appeals, 2013

State v. Tate

Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided January 29, 2013 · Dowd, Quigless, Richter

390 S.W.3d 265; 2013 WL 327024; 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 97 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Donovan E. Tate v. State of Missouri (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, Donavan Tate (“Appellant”) was convicted of robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020,1 and accompanying armed criminal action, in violation of 571.015. On appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling his objection to Detective Treis’ testimony that the person in the Boost Mobile robbery surveillance video was the same person in the Fresh Image surveillance video.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in *266admitting Detective Treis’ testimony. The trial court’s ruling was not clearly against the logic of the circumstances or so unreasonable it indicated a lack of careful consideration. In addition, Appellant suffered no prejudice. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) Mo.R.Crim. P. (2012).

. All Statutory references are to RSMo. (2000), unless otherwise stated.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.