State v. Ashford, 42096
| Decision Date | 11 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 42096,42096 |
| Citation | 620 S.W.2d 445 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anthony ASHFORD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Babione, Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals from a conviction by a jury of robbery in the first degree, two counts of kidnapping, and assault with intent to do great bodily harm with malice aforethought. 1 He was sentenced by the court in accordance with the verdict of the jury to terms of ten years for robbery in the first degree, ten years for each count of kidnapping, and fifteen years for assault with intent to do great bodily harm with malice aforethought. The court directed that the terms for the two counts of kidnapping run concurrently and that the terms for the other offenses run consecutively.
Although defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, 2 we relate sufficient facts to dispose of his points. On July 1, 1978, defendant and another man went to the house of Paula Garth. The woman was asked if she had any money or gas. The other man tied her up and handed the defendant a knife which he held on the woman. The woman said something to the defendant which angered him and he grabbed her around the throat and choked her for some time. The woman and her five-year old daughter, Mia Garth, were then forced to accompany the two men in the woman's car to the foot of a railroad embankment located near 8500 Partridge Avenue, in St. Louis. In the car, the woman cried and pleaded that the men not hurt her daughter. The woman was taken from the car and led up the embankment. The other man told the defendant to throw the woman in front of an oncoming train. Defendant refused, so the other man stated, As the defendant looked on, the other man struck the woman in the face which caused her to fall to the ground. He then "stomped" on her face and chest. The two men left the woman there, returned to the car, and drove the child to the Chain of Rocks Park. The child was taken from the car to a wooded place, stabbed in the chest with the butt end of a knife and tied to a tree. The men left the child there and drove to a shopping center where the defendant used the woman's credit card to purchase some clothing.
After the man left her, the child was able to free herself from the tree, walk to the road and flag down a passing motorist who took her to a police station. Later, on the same day, Paula Garth was discovered by a passing motorist lying on a path, halfway up the railroad embankment. Her blouse was open, she was unconscious and experiencing convulsions. She never regained consciousness and died seven days later of brain damage, kidney failure, blood imbalance and prolonged hypertension. The state attempted to prove that Paula died as a result of the conduct of her abductors; the defendant attempted to prove that she died as a result of drugs and alcohol that she had consumed prior to the crimes.
The stolen vehicle was recovered about a block from defendant's house. His fingerprints were found on the vehicle. Defendant was arrested by the police on July 5, 1978. He was placed in a police lineup and positively identified by Mia Garth as one of the men who abducted her.
Prior to the trial, defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude any testimony regarding the death of Paula Garth. This motion was overruled by the court. During the trial, both parties introduced evidence concerning the death of the woman.
Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to sustain defendant's motion for mistrial after testimony was volunteered by a police officer that Mia Garth had identified someone in the police lineup.
The police officer gave the following testimony concerning identification of a person in the police lineup:
"Q (By Mr. Sullivan, prosecuting attorney) Were you at a lineup where the defendant, Anthony Ashford, was present in?
A (By police officer) Yes.
Q And how many people were in that lineup?
A There were several young men. Five or six young men.
Q And, again, were they all taken from the Juvenile Center?
A Yes.
Q Were they relatively the same age, height, and weight and build as the defendant?
A Yes.
Q Who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
...thin ground that the officer's testimony concerning the identification did not specifically state who was identified. See State v. Ashford, 620 S.W.2d 445 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Csolak, 571 S.W.2d 118 Despite the uniformity of result in these cases, analysis has varied under the labels of ......
-
State v. Wade, s. 65736
...that an eyewitness provided a general physical description which did not include any distinctive details. See State v. Ashford, 620 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Mo.App.1981). Because the cumulative evidence in the instant case referred to a description given by a witness rather than actual extrajudicia......
-
Ashford v. State, 54279
...except the kidnapping sentences were to be served concurrently. He appealed his convictions and we affirmed. State v. Ashford, 620 S.W.2d 445 (Mo.App.1981). In his amended 27.26 motion, movant requested relief on the following 1) The prosecutor violated movant's constitutional rights by com......