State v. Dyer, 11087
| Decision Date | 07 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 11087,11087 |
| Citation | State v. Dyer, 582 S.W.2d 736 (Mo. App. 1979) |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kim DYER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Bruce E. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
C. R. Rhoades, Neosho, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant Kim Dyer was jury tried and convicted of the sale of a controlled substance, marijuana, and sentenced to a five year prison term. His sole point in this appeal is that the information was fatally defective because it did not identify the buyer of the marijuana. We affirm.
The information charged defendant did on October 21, 1977, "unlawfully and willfully and feloniously sell a controlled substance, to-wit: Marijuana, . . . " Trial evidence was that defendant sold an undercover officer, Richard Lee Bartley, Jr., alias "Lee Rupert" and "Professor", a bag of marijuana for $10 on October 21, 1977. The jury rejected defendant's alibi defense.
The sufficiency of an information in a narcotics case under § 195.020, V.A.M.S., was discussed in State v. Taylor, 375 S.W.2d 58 (Mo.1964). At page 63 the court said:
In the more recent ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Parker v. State, WD 31295.
...buyers be singular or plural does not affect the incidence of the offense. Haynes v. State, supra, 565 S.W.2d l.c. 1921; State v. Dyer, 582 S.W.2d 736, 737 (Mo.App.1979). The cases cited by the prosecution, and those others which find multiple offenses from the sale or distribution of contr......