You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State v. AEM

Citations: 297 S.W.3d 151; 2009 WL 4035556Docket: WD 70770

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; November 23, 2009; Missouri; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test administered to A.E.M. The State of Missouri appealed the suppression, but the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision. The court determined that issuing a detailed opinion would not provide precedential value. A memorandum outlining the reasoning for the decision was provided to the involved parties, and the judgment was affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review Standards

Application: The appellate court found that the trial court's decision was supported by sufficient evidence, adhering to established standards for appellate review.

Reasoning: The State of Missouri appealed the suppression, but the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision.

Precedential Value of Judicial Opinions

Application: The court concluded that a detailed opinion was unnecessary as it would not contribute to legal precedents, opting instead for a memorandum to explain the decision to the parties involved.

Reasoning: The court determined that issuing a detailed opinion would not provide precedential value.

Rule 30.25(b) Judgment Affirmation

Application: The judgment was affirmed following the procedural guidelines outlined in Rule 30.25(b), indicating adherence to specific procedural rules in affirming trial court decisions.

Reasoning: The judgment was affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Suppression of Evidence

Application: The court upheld the trial court's decision to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test, indicating that the suppression was supported by sufficient evidence and in accordance with legal standards.

Reasoning: The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test administered to A.E.M.