Case ID: sw3d_539/html/0046-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kenneth GREGORY, Appellant.
    No. ED 104608
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
    Filed: October 10, 2017 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 19, 2017
    Emily S. Danker-Feldman, 1010 Market St. Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Defendant/Appellant.
    Gregory L. Barnes, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.
    Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Gregory ("Defendant") appeals his conviction of one count of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree in violation of § 565.083 and one count of possession of contraband in violation of § 221.111. Defendant argues four points on appeal. First, he claims that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to issue and serve subpoenas to certain witnesses he wished to have testify when he was proceeding pro se. Second, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing witnesses Pamela Larkin and Erica Oppelz to testify regarding two lab reports and 250 pages of notes that were disclosed by the State only two days before trial. Third, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to quash the jury panel because the jury was not selected from a fair cross-section of the population. Finally, Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to exclude and in allowing the jury to view a grid of the DNA analysis that the State did not provide to Defendant before trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).