Kansas City v. Verstraete
| Decision Date | 05 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 25842,25842 |
| Citation | 481 S.W.2d 615 |
| Parties | KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael H. VERSTRAETE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lillie Knight and W. Raymond Hedrick, Kansas City, for appellant.
Aaron A. Wilson, City Counselor, and Louis W. Benecke, City Prosecutor, Kansas City, for respondent.
In this appeal from a conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (Section 34.113, Revised Ordinance of Kansas City), a main issue is whether there was sufficient evidence of appellant's driving the vehicle (a part of the corpus delicti) so as to cause appellant's out of court statements to be admissible.
On March 20, 1971, at approximately 7:35 p.m., Officer Richard K. Weidemeyer was dispatched to 4018 Warwick in Kansas City to investigate an accident. He found appellant at the scene, and talked with him there. 'A The defendant stated to me when I asked him my questions about the circumstances that, in his opinion, he didn't think that he had struck anything.' The officer smelled an odor of alcholic liquor on appellant's breath when he was talking to him. Appellant stated that he had had three or four highballs at Chez Charlie's on Broadway. The officer gave appellant a walking balance test at the police station and also, being qualified to do so, a breathalyzer test. 'A Well, I had him stand erect with his hands down to his sides looking straight ahead, pointed out a crack in the tile on the floor and instructed him to walk towards me heel to toe, and in performing this walking test his--his balance was swaying in his walking and was quite pronounced as he walked towards me.' Appellant was somewhat uncertain in turning around to walk away from the officer. He appeared to try to make his turn in a smooth, sweeping action. He was quite hesitating and had to put his foot out to maintain his balance. Upon shining a flash-light in appellant's eyes the officer received a very slow reaction to the pupils becoming smaller. The breathalyzer test resulted in a blood alcohol reading of 'Point two-zero percent.'
On cross-examination Officer Weidemeyer testified that when he first saw appellant he was walking around in front of the sidewalk at 48th (40th?) and Warwick. On re-direct examination it was further developed that appellant's car was parked down the street about 50 to 75 feet against the curb and headed south. He was among a crowd of people in the immediate vicinity where a bicycle had hit a pole.
Relying upon City of St. Louis v. Watters, Mo.App., 289 S.W.2d 444, and State v. Summers, Mo., 362 S.W.2d 537, appellant contends that there was not sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti, and that his uncorroborated extrajudicial statements, 'in his opinion he didn't think he struck anything,' and that 'he stated he had been driving a car' were erroneously admitted by the court. In essence the argument is that the City rested its case entirely upon appellant's out of court statements.
In the Watters case there was insufficient evidence (by independent proof) that appellant had falsely reported a law violation to a police officer. All that was in the case was evidence that after a (later) polygraph test, appellant told the officers that his prior report of the robbery was false. The court held the statement did not prove the corpus delicti (i.e. that appellant had made a false report to a law officer), and was inadmissible. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Osborne
...evidence tending to corroborate the admissions"); Davis v. State, 202 Md. 463, 97 A.2d 303 (1953); Kansas City v. Verstraete, 481 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Mo.Ct.App.1972) ("If there is evidence of corroborating circumstances, independent of the confession, which tends to prove the offense by confir......
-
State v. Charity
...State v. Cooper, 358 Mo. 269, 214 S.W.2d 19, 20 (1948); State v. White, 552 S.W.2d 33, 34 (Mo.App.1977); Kansas City v. Verstraete, 481 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Mo.App.1972).2 State v. McQuinn, 361 Mo. 631, 235 S.W.2d 396, 397(3) (1951); State v. Arndt, 143 S.W.2d 286, 287 (Mo.1940); State v. Skibi......
-
State v. Miller
...Louis v. Watters, 289 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Mo.App.1956); see also State v. Howard, 738 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Mo.App.1987); Kansas City v. Verstraete, 481 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Mo.App.1972). Thus, "[t]he substantive offense is sufficiently proven by independent evidence of circumstances that correspond an......
-
State v. Lilly
...circuit court's ruling, Lilly relies heavily on State v. Friesen, 725 S.W.2d 638, 639–40 (Mo.App.W.D.1987), and Kansas City v. Verstraete, 481 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Mo.App.1972). The continuing viability of Friesen and Verstraete may be open to question based on the discussion of the scope of......
-
The offense
...independent of the defendant’s admissions. See Thompson v. State , 151 Ga. App. 128, 258 S.E.2d 776 (1979); Kansas City v. Verstraete , 481 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. 1972); see, e.g., State v. Maloney , 111 R.I. 133, 300 A.2d 259 (1973). The defendant’s admissions, coupled with sufficient corroborati......