Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael CRAWFORD, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 144 S.W.3d 301
Docket Number: No. ED 82031
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael CRAWFORD, Appellant.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., MARY R. RUSSELL, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 144
Pages: 301–301

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael CRAWFORD, Appellant.
No. ED 82031.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Oct. 21, 2003.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dee. 24, 2003.
Case Transferred to Supreme Court Jan. 27, 2004.
Case Retransferred to Court of Appeals Sept. 28, 2004,
Original Opinion Reinstated Oct. 13, 2004.
Amy M. Bartholow, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
John Munson Morris III, Karen L. Kramer, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., MARY R. RUSSELL, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Michael Crawford ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of first degree murder, armed criminal action, and first degree assault. He alleges three points of error. His first two points address the pretrial lineup in which he was identified as the assailant. Specifically, in his first point, he alleges that the State violated his constitutional rights by conducting a lineup in the absence of defense counsel. In his second point, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the identification testimony of witnesses in that the identification procedures were unduly suggestive and created a substantial risk of misidenti-fication. In his final point, he asserts that the trial court erred in failing to question each juror individually regarding an allegedly prejudicial newspaper article that was published the evening before the jurors began their second day of deliberations. We find no merit in Defendant's arguments and affirm.
The judgment entered upon the verdict is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).