State v. Brown

Decision Date24 April 1984
Docket NumberNo. 13388,13388
Citation670 S.W.2d 140
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gary Leon BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

David Robards, Public Defender Com'n, Joplin, for defendant-appellant.

PREWITT, Judge.

Defendant was convicted, following jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentenced as a persistent offender to fifteen years' imprisonment. Defendant was arrested inside a building that had been broken into a few minutes before. His primary defense was that he was too intoxicated to have the necessary mental state to commit the crime. See § 562.076.1(1), RSMo 1978. This defense was submitted to the jury by MAI-CR2d 3.30.1.

On appeal defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing testimony of an arresting officer that approximately twenty minutes after he was arrested defendant said he was on parole. Defendant claims this was improper because it was evidence that he had committed another crime. The arresting officer stated:

"Through just talking back and forth, he told me that he fucked up, and I said, 'Well, what do you mean?' and he said, 'I go to school now, at Franklin Tech,' and we talked about Franklin Tech because at the time I was going to school, too. We discussed what he was doing, his wife--he got married, I think at that time he said five months earlier, I don't remember for sure, his wife is pregnant now; he mentioned that he was on parole; he said he was good up to now, but he was just around the wrong group, he didn't have really the intentions of going and doing what he had done, but he just--he hangs around with the wrong kind of guys, because normally he wouldn't do this by himself, it wouldn't be his idea."

Before the conversation was related to the jury defendant objected to the entire conversation and also specifically to the reference to him being on parole. As a part of the objections defendant's counsel requested that if the conversation was generally to be allowed that the reference to parole be excluded.

In its brief the state contends that the testimony was admissible as it showed that defendant "was not so intoxicated so as not to understand the criminality of his conduct" and "was introduced to show that the appellant knew and understood that he entered the building unlawfully and that he acted with the purpose to steal."

In his closing argument the prosecuting attorney argued that the mention of parole showed that the defendant knew he had done something wrong. The prosecuting attorney stated of the defendant: "What did he say? 'I fucked up.' Policeman says, 'How?' 'I'm on parole, I've been good up to now, but I'm on parole and I fucked up. I didn't mean to get in this situation, but I've been running with a bad crowd.' " Several other references to the same effect were made in closing argument by the prosecutor.

The reference to parole would indicate to the jury that defendant had earlier been convicted of a crime. No other conclusion has been suggested to us. Proof of the commission of a separate crime is not admissible unless it has a legitimate tendency to directly establish defendant's guilt of the crime charged. State v. Quigley, 591 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Mo.App.1979). See also State v. Hodge, 655 S.W.2d 738, 744 (Mo.App.1983).

The reason for this is that evidence of other crimes, unless related to that for which the defendant is being tried, violates his right to be tried only for the offense for which he is charged. State v. Wright, 582 S.W.2d 275, 277 (Mo. banc 1979). If erroneously admitted, evidence of other crimes is presumed to be prejudicial. State v. Maddox, 657 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Mo.App.1983). Caution should be exercised regarding such evidence because of its tendency to cause an improper presumption of guilt in the minds of the jurors. State v. Carter, 475 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Mo.1972). If there is not a clear connection between another crime and the crime charged, the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt and the evidence not allowed. Id.

Of course, each case is different. Evidence in somewhat similar cases has been allowed, United States v. Smith, 552 F.2d 257, 260 (8th Cir.1977); Chambers v. United States, 383 A.2d 343, 345 (D.C.App.1978); People v. Lenser, 102 Ill.App.3d 214, 58 Ill.Dec. 463, 430 N.E.2d 495, 496-498 (1982), and disallowed, Davis v. United States, 413 F.2d 1226, 1229-1230 (5th Cir.1969).

The state wanted to show that at the time he did it defendant realized that breaking into the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Cummings
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 20, 2004
    ...about not going "back" to jail does constitute evidence that she previously had been convicted of a crime. See State v. Brown, 670 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Mo. App.1984); State v. Brooks, 675 S.W.2d 53, 57-59 (Mo.App.1984). That being so, however, her statement is not ipso facto inadmissible. While......
  • State v. Brooks, 13305
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 13, 1984
    ...State v. Carter, 475 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Mo.1972), quoting State v. Reese, 364 Mo. 1221, 274 S.W.2d 304 (banc 1954). See also, State v. Brown, 670 S.W.2d 140 (Mo.App.1984), and cases there cited. For these considerations and reasons just observed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded ......
  • State v. Motley, 52335
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 1987
    ...although the defendant presented alibi witnesses, he never took the stand and never placed his character in issue. In State v. Brown, 670 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Mo.App.1984), we noted that caution should be exercised regarding erroneously admitted evidence of other crimes because of its tendency ......
  • State v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 5, 2005
    ...that a "reference to parole [c]ould indicate to the jury that defendant had earlier been convicted of a crime." State v. Brown, 670 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Mo.App.1984). However, in the present matter Defendant himself took the stand at trial and personally detailed a list of his prior convictions......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 23.37 Evidence of Other Crimes and Bad Acts by Defendant
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Criminal Practice Deskbook Chapter 23 Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...(Mo. banc 1992) (Thomas, J., concurring). “[O]ther crimes” includes reference to the fact that a defendant was on parole, State v. Brown, 670 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984), or that a defendant’s “mug shot” had initials other than the victim’s on the back, thus implying other arrests,......

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