625 S.W.2d 682 (Mo.App. E.D. 1981), 43615, State v. Hunter

Docket Nº:43615.
Citation:625 S.W.2d 682
Party Name:STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tony Earl HUNTER, Appellant.
Case Date:December 01, 1981
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri

Page 682

625 S.W.2d 682 (Mo.App. E.D. 1981)

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,


Tony Earl HUNTER, Appellant.

No. 43615.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Third Division.

December 1, 1981

Page 683

William J. Shaw, Public Defender, Janet F. Catalona, Asst. Public Defender, Clayton, for appellant.

John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

REINHARD, Presiding Judge.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of the charge of forgery. He was sentenced by the court to a term of one year. § 570.090.1(4); 558.011.1(3); 560.011 RSMo.1978. We affirm.

On appeal defendant raises one point: that the court erred in admitting into evidence a set of his fingerprints taken under court order while he was in custody. The facts pertinent to the resolution of this case follow: On March 23, 1979 Postal Inspector Dorosh contacted the Wellston Police and told them that he wanted to talk to defendant with respect to a stolen check. The check had been stolen from defendant's cousin, whose endorsement had been forged and the check cashed. The police consulted their records and found that warrants against defendant were outstanding in three other municipalities. Pursuant to these warrants the Wellston Police arrested defendant, and took him to the police station. There he was booked, and Postal Inspector Dorosh questioned him and took his fingerprints. Approximately four months later defendant was charged with forgery and Postal Inspector Dorosh was endorsed as a witness. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the fingerprint evidence which had been obtained by Dorosh on March 23, 1979. A hearing was held and the trial court sustained the motion. The court found "that the fingerprint cards were not taken in conjunction with the arrest but were an independent action of the federal officer who had no probable cause to have taken those at that particular time." 1

Thereafter the state moved, under Rule 25.06, 2 to have defendant fingerprinted. The court sustained the state's motion and ordered defendant fingerprinted. Defendant filed a motion to suppress this set of fingerprints, which was overruled. The second set of fingerprints was then used at trial, over defense objection.

On appeal defendant argues for a broad rule that once fingerprint evidence is suppressed, any other set of prints is necessarily "tainted" and "fruit of the...

To continue reading