Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

216 S.W.3d 187

State v. Taylor

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 13, 2007

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2007-02-13

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2016

7 state decisions

Relies on State v. Young

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-02-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

KENNETH M. ROMINES, Judge,

¶1concurring.

¶2Concurring in result.

¶3I concur in the result reached. I do not concur in the sundry footnotes, nor the analyses advanced.

¶4To me, in a very literal sense, less than 0.01 grams clearly demonstrates an insufficiency of evidence such that reversal is required. We have forgotten what comes after de mimimis — non curat lex. I believe, however, I am precluded by State v. Young 427 S.W.2d 510 (Mo.1968), from reaching this conclusion.

¶5The Court grants plain error review, and finds a miscarriage of justice. This record justifies both conclusions. Simply, *196there is no evidence in the record which ties defendant to the purse. The purse was all the prosecutor had, he used, it was error.

/216/sw3d/187 · .json · Public domain