Brown v. Baldwin
Decision Date | 08 March 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 72 C 665(3).,72 C 665(3). |
Citation | 356 F. Supp. 831 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Parties | Kerry BROWN, Petitioner, v. August H. BALDWIN, Superintendent (Missouri Training Center for Men, Moberly, Missouri), Respondent. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Louis Gilden, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., State of Missouri, Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for respondent.
Kerry Brown, a state prisoner, petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to kill with malice aforethought in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri and is presently serving a sentence of forty-five (45) years in the Missouri Training Center for Men at Moberly, Missouri. An Order to Show Cause was entered November 3, 1972, and a Response was filed December 5, 1972. An attorney entered his appearance for petitioner on January 8, 1973 and filed a Reply to the Response on January 15, 1973.
Petitioner alleges the following grounds for the writ:
A. The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction because petitioner was a minor at the time the offense was committed;
B. Denial of a fair trial because one witness for the State was brought into court on a stretcher, accompanied by a uniformed nurse, and was permitted to present cumulative and unnecessary testimony which inflamed and prejudiced the jury and because prejudicial publicity was communicated to the jury;
C. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence because the state failed to prove petitioner was at the scene of the crime on the day in question;
D. The court invaded the province of the jury when, after the jury had deliberated five (5) hours and was unable to reach a verdict, it submitted an instruction (number 6) that if the jury had agreed upon the guilt of the defendant but was unable to agree on punishment, then the jury could return the verdict and the court would set the punishment;
E. Denial of a fair trial by an impartial jury because the prosecutor peremptorily struck all Negroes from the panel of veniremen solely because of their race;
F. Denial of effective assistance of counsel because counsel was not adequately prepared and made no attempt to secure witnesses in defense.
Points A, B, C and D were decided adversely to petitioner by the Supreme Court of Missouri on direct appeal of his conviction. State v. Brown, 443 S. W.2d 805 (Mo. en banc 1969). Points E and F were decided adversely to petitioner by the Supreme Court of Missouri in his appeal from a denial of a motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26 (V.A.M.R.). Brown v. State, 470 S.W.2d 543 (Mo. 1971). Therefore, as to these issues, petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
The Missouri Supreme Court summarized the factual background of this case as follows:
State v. Brown, 443 S.W.2d 805, 807 (Mo. en banc 1969)
A.
Petitioner's first ground is that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction because petitioner was a minor at the time the offense was committed. Section 211.031(2) R.S.Mo., V.A.M.S. (1959) provides that the juvenile court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of a minor who is alleged to have violated a law "prior to having become seventeen years of age." The evidence is undisputed that the offense occurred February 25, 1967 at 4:30 p. m. and that defendant was born February 25, 1950 at 6:32 p. m. No Missouri statute provided a rule for computing a person's age and therefore the Missouri Supreme Court was required to apply the common law. § 1.010, R.S.Mo. (1959). The Missouri Supreme Court correctly concluded that on the basis of either of two common law rules,1 the petitioner had reached seventeen years of age at the time of the offense and consequently the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction. State v. Brown, 443 S.W.2d 805, 806-807 (Mo. en banc 1969). Petitioner does not point out how that interpretation of § 211.031(2), R.S.Mo. (1959) has placed him "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).2 This contention is without merit.
B.
Petitioner's second ground is that he was denied a fair trial because (1) a witness for the state (Officer Rodgers) was brought into court on a stretcher, accompanied by a uniformed nurse, and was permitted to present cumulative and unnecessary testimony which inflamed and prejudiced the jury and (2) prejudicial publicity was communicated to the jury.
(1)
The Supreme Court of Missouri accurately summarized what transpired concerning the testimony of Officer Rodgers:
The court concluded:
Id. at 808. (Emphasis supplied).
It is well settled that evidentiary matters are not grounds for relief by way of habeas corpus unless a specific provision of the Constitution is violated or an error is of such magnitude as to violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Atwell v. Arkansas, 426 F.2d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 1970); Taylor v. Minnesota, 466 F.2d 1119 (8th Cir. 1972); Tomlin v. Baldwin, 72 C. 507(3) at 2 (E.D.Mo.1972). The bare facts from the record do not demonstrate that what transpired rendered petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair or that the trial judge, who actually observed the situation, was plainly incorrect in reaching the same conclusion. Petitioner argues, additionally, that what transpired rendered his trial fundamentally unfair in the circumstances because Officer Rodgers' testimony was cumulative and unnecessary. Officer Rodgers and two other eyewitnesses identified petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime. William Simpkins, the store owner who was seriously wounded, was unable to identify petitioner. Petitioner's defense in the trial court and on appeal (and one of the grounds urged here for the writ) was that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was even present at the scene of the crime. State v. Brown, 443 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Mo. en banc 1969). Petitioner also asserted an alibi defense. Id. The Supreme Court correctly concluded that it was not fundamentally unfair for the state to call Officer Rodgers as a witness.3
(2)
Petitioner's contention that his trial was rendered unfair because prejudicial publicity was communicated to the jury is based on the fact that the jury was not sequestered prior to final submission of the case and his conclusion that the trial received undue and excessive publicity. The Supreme Court of Missouri summarized the publicity the trial received:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henry v. State
... ... See Brown v. State, 294 So.2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (Poulton, Associate Judge, dissenting). The jury in Hedges was given an incomplete instruction with ... 1974); United States v. Abbadessa, 470 F.2d 1333 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Wheeler, 444 F.2d 385 (10th Cir. 1971); Brown v. Baldwin ... ...
-
Parker v. State, 271
... ... In State v. Brown, 443 S.W.2d 805 (Mo.1969) (en banc ), the Supreme Court of Missouri rejected a defendant's claim that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to ... See Brown v. Baldwin, 356 F.Supp. 831 (E.D.Mo.1973); People v. Anderson, 108 Ill.App.3d 563, 64 Ill.Dec. 136, 439 N.E.2d 65 (1982); see generally, Annot. 5 A.L.R.2d at ... ...
- Brown v. Wyrick, 80-152-C(3).