Where a defendant in a robbery case challenged the non-disclosure of a witness for the state, the witness was a rebuttal witness that merely impeached the testimony of the defendant’s girlfriend, so the rebuttal witness was not required to be disclosed, and testimony from a print examiner did not violate the confrontation clause because the testimony was based on her own analysis and findings.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Ivy (MLW No. 71138/Case No. ED104698 – 24 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Hess, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis City, Wilson, J. (Gwenda R. Robinson for appellant) (Karen L. Kramer for respondent).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)