Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mario SMITH, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-04-15
Citations: 103 S.W.3d 888
Docket Number: No. ED 81571
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mario SMITH, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J, and GLENN A. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 103
Pages: 888–888

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mario SMITH, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 81571.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
April 15, 2003.
Stacey Franks Sullivan, Douglas R. Hoff, Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Sherry Alisa Gutnick, Circuit Attorney’s Law Office, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J, and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Mario Smith (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of sexual misconduct in the first degree. Defendant alleges trial court error in overruling his Motion in Limine and subsequent objection at trial to certain testimony by the victim regarding prior uncharged misconduct by Defendant. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's Motion in Limine and subsequent objection at trial to the testimony by Victim that Defendant had touched Victim on her leg when she was thirteen. State v. Coleman, 857 S.W.2d 363, 364 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).