State v. Boyd

Citation669 S.W.2d 232
Decision Date13 March 1984
Docket NumberNo. 46596,46596
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Larry BOYD, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Scott Richardson, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

REINHARD, Judge.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, a violation of § 565.004, RSMo.1978. In accordance with the punishment assessed by the jury, he was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment. He appeals, contending the court erred in admitting certain evidence. We affirm.

In the early morning hours of July 20, 1981, Denise Woolridge was repeatedly stabbed while in her St. Louis apartment. The altercation with her assailant attracted the attention of her neighbor, Ronald Coleman, who looked out his window and observed the victim staggering and crying out for help as the defendant entered her car and fled. Mr. Coleman ordered his wife to summon police and ran to Miss Woolridge's assistance. He found her on the sidewalk, collapsed from multiple stab wounds and with a cord around her neck. He asked who did this to her, to which she replied, "a guy named Larry." Mr. Coleman testified at trial, in the course of which he related the victim's remark, over defense counsel's objections.

Police arrived within minutes. At that time, the victim was being placed in an ambulance and was readied to transport to the hospital. Police officer Dotson asked the victim who had stabbed her, to which she replied, "Larry." The officer also related the victim's response at trial, despite defendant's objection. Officer Dotson further testified by describing the interior of the victim's apartment. He found a blood-stained butcher knife in the living room and the bathroom splattered with blood. Testimony from other police officers established that defendant's fingerprints were found in a telephone which had been shoved into a pillowcase in the victim's apartment.

The victim's injuries were extensive--29 stab wounds from a knife approximately 10 1/2 inches long. The wounds extended from her chest to her abdomen, as well as her back; one wound pierced the ventricle of her heart, another severed the bone in her finger. She was rushed to surgery and, from there, to intensive care, where she remained until her death on August 5, 1981.

Initially, the victim appeared to be recovering from her attack. However, beginning on July 26, 1981, her health steadily deteriorated due to complications. Finally, on July 29, 1981, the attending physician, Dr. Brunt, informed the prosecuting attorney that the victim might die at any time. He later testified that, in his opinion, the victim knew she was dying. The following day, they met to record Miss Woolridge's final statement. At the outset, Dr. Brunt informed Miss Woolridge that there was a very good chance she was going to die. He asked her if she understood that and she nodded affirmatively. They then asked her a series of questions regarding her awareness of her condition, the events of her attack, and the identity of her attacker. Due to oxygen tubes running down her throat, the victim could not speak. However, she recorded her answers on the pad of paper held by Dr. Brunt. These answers were admitted into evidence against defendant at his trial.

On appeal, defendant contends that the testimony of Mr. Coleman and police officer Dotson relating to the victim's statements were impermissible hearsay. They were not.

These statements were offered as an exception to the hearsay rule and under what is commonly referred to as an excited utterance. The rationale for this exception is that where the statement is made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses as a result of the shock produced by the event, the utterance may be taken as the true belief of the declarant. State v. Rogers, 585 S.W.2d 498, 504 (Mo.App.1979). The key requirements for admission of a statement as an excited utterance are that the declarant has been subjected to as startling event; the statement is made before there is time to fabricate, and it relates to the circumstances of the occurrence. State v. Van Orman, 642 S.W.2d 636, 639 (Mo.1982). Thus, the essential test for admissibility of a spontaneous statement or excited utterance is neither the time nor the place of its utterance, but whether it is made under such circumstances, as to indicate that it is trustworthy. Id.

Applying the rule to this case, we have no difficulty in ruling that the circumstances under which the challenged statements were made speak for their trustworthiness and therefore qualify them as excited utterances. A savage attack of the type suffered by Miss Woolridge surely constitutes a startling...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Franklin
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 12, 1988
    ...the hearsay ban is that the excited utterance was made under such circumstances as to indicate trustworthiness. State v. Boyd, 669 S.W.2d 232, 234 (Mo.App.1984). When testimony, as in this case, indicates several officers at the scene of an unrelated incident heard a woman scream, witnessed......
  • State v. Skinner, 51978
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1987
    ...for the declarant or declarants to fabricate a false statement. State v. Hook, 432 S.W.2d 349, 353 (Mo.1968); State v. Boyd, 669 S.W.2d 232, 234 (Mo.App.1984). Defendant asserts that the time lapse between the shootings and the arrival of the officer was sufficient to allow for fabrication ......
  • State v. Jackson, 63932
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 1, 1994
    ...circumstances surrounding it which indicate its trustworthiness. State v. Boyland, 728 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Boyd, 669 S.W.2d 232, 234 (Mo.App.1984). The evidence indicates Victim made her statements describing her assailants while still under the excitement of the event. ......
  • State v. Newlon, 50870
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 1986
    ...the testimony was admissible under the "res gestae" or excited utterance exception to the rule excluding hearsay evidence. State v. Boyd, 669 S.W.2d 232 (Mo.App.1984). This was a statement made by a declarant who had been subjected to a startling event which related to the circumstances of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT