Where a defendant challenged his conviction for first-degree tampering and an order of restitution, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of other thefts and drug use because the evidence was relevant to establish the defendant’s identity through surveillance videos and to establish his motive of funding his heroin habit, and the judgment is affirmed in part because the court did not abuse its discretion in further evidentiary rulings, and he did not show a speedy-trial violation, but an order of restitution is vacated because the oral pronouncement did not mention restitution and there was no evidence of the amount of loss.
Judgment is affirmed in part; vacated.
State v. Young (MLW No. 73400/Case No. ED106574 – 18 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Ransom, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Warren County, Dalton, J. (William J. Swift for appellant) (Richard A. Starnes for respondent).