State v. Buckner
Decision Date | 04 August 1975 |
Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John L. BUCKNER, Appellant. 27415. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Willard B. Buch, Public Defender, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Robert A. Simons, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Clarence Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before WASSERSTROM, P.J., and SHANGLER and DIXON, JJ.
The defendant was convicted for the armed robbery of taxicab driver Hatch and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for five years in accordance with the verdict of the jury.
The conviction was returned on the evidence of witness Hatch that, as he stopped his Yellow Cab to discharge a fare, a young man (whom he identified as the appellant) engaged the conveyance and took a seat beside the driver. Immediately, two other men jumped into the backseat and directed Hatch to an address. As Hatch came to a stop at the designated destination, all three men announced it was a hold-up and loudly demanded his money. Hatch observed a gun held by one of the men in the backseat, and relinquished about $65 to them. He was commanded to go on, and pulled away leaving the trio standing on the sidewalk.
Hatch reported the incident to the police who initiated a search in which Hatch joined. The appellant was found standing on the sidewalk near the site of the robbery. He was taken into custody and while he and Hatch were alone momentarily in the police car, so Hatch related at the trial, the appellant offered: 'If you don't testify against me I'll pay you anything you want'. Upon cross-examination, Hatch disclosed that he had given a signed written statement to the police, but could not recall whether he had mentioned the offer attributed to the appellant at the trial.
The appellant Buckner took the stand and testified that he took no part in the robbery and that the other two, who were only casual acquaintances, got into the cab without previous intimation; that he was unarmed and all the incidents of the robbery were perpetrated by the other two, from whom he fled in fear afterwards. The only words he spoke to Hatch while together in the police car were: 'Man, it wasn't me that robbed you, I don't know who robbed you.'
In advance of trial the appellant by motion formally requested, and the court granted, discovery of
Any written or recorded statements or the substance of any oral statements of all persons whom the prosecuting attorney intends to call as witnesses at the trial. 1
In response, the State produced a copy of an unsigned statement of the witness Hatch, marked at the trial by appellant as his Exhibit 1. On cross-examination, counsel for appellant confronted witness Hatch with Exhibit 1, with the purpose of eliciting his acknowledgment that the statement was what it purported to be, a narrative to the police of the events leading to the charge, and to show that the statement made no mention of the offer attributed to the appellant by Hatch. After numerous objections by the prosecution, more jobation than orderly response, the court refused the exhibit as not the best evidence for the purpose intended since it was neither signed by the witness nor in his hand.
Counsel for the appellant resumed cross-examination of witness Hatch:
Q. Did you give a signed written statement to the police on that date or shortly thereafter?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you now recall whether or not you included mention of this conversation in that report?
A. I can't recall.
Thereupon, Mr. Simons, counsel for appellant, and Mr. Edwards, the prosecutor, approached the bench for the following proceedings. (Our emphasis throughout):
I would like to point out that the request was made for written statements of witnesses if they existed.
Now if this was an oral statement that somebody took down that's one thing and that is differentiated from the written statement.
(This colloquy on the mistrial motion of the appellant for failure of the State to make discovery of the signed statement described by witness Hatch was then distracted by a comment of the prosecutor on the inadmissibility as evidence of Exhibit 1, the unsigned statement of Hatch, a ruling already made by the court and accepted by the appellant.)
(The colloquy resumed with counsel for appellant probing the existence of, and reasserting his right to discover, a separate, signed statement by Hatch and the prosecutor and the court reconsidering the possible admissibility of the unsigned statement as evidence for purposes of impeachment.)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Smothers, 61299.
...317 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Stapleton, 539 S.W.2d 655 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Dayton, 535 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Buckner, 526 S.W.2d 387 (Mo.App. 1975). See, e. g., cases where the accused has failed to comply: State v. Inscore, 592 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. banc 1980); State v. Stevenson......
-
State v. Dixon
...and opportunity for effective cross-examination." State ex rel. Westfall v. Crandall, 610 S.W.2d at 47 quoting State v. Buckner, 526 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo.App.1975). Once the defendant raised the defense of diminished mental capacity, the state had the burden of proving that the defendant did......
-
State v. Cox
...promotes informed pleas, expedited trials, a minimum of surprise and opportunity for effective cross-examination.' State v. Buckner, 526 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo.App.1975). Rule 25.34(A)(5) provides 'If the defendant intends to rely on the defense of alibi and the state in its motion specifies t......
-
State v. Dayton, KCD27649
... ... State v. McClain, 498 S.W.2d 798, 799 (Mo. banc 1973). And, certainly the purpose of Rule 25.32 includes opportunity to a defendant to prepare in advance of trial for the impeachment of a witness by his own statement. State v. Buckner, 526 S.W.2d 387, 392(3, 4) (Mo.App.1975) ... It is the contention of the State that, notwithstanding nondisclosure, the evidence of Jerry Dayton for the defendant admitted that G.D. had been assaulted, forced to the act of fellatio, and tortured with a prod, so that the statement ... ...