State v. Carroll, 38219
| Decision Date | 07 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 38219,38219 |
| Citation | 562 S.W.2d 772 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gerald R. CARROLL, Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Daniel V. O'Brien, St. Louis, for appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., Ronald B. Safren, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
After certification by the juvenile court, the 16-year-old defendant was convicted in the circuit court for manslaughter and armed robbery and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.
Defendant's principal contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession because his pretrial counsel was incompetent in failing to prevent him from confessing. Defendant also contends that after the jury had deliberated three hours the trial court erred in giving MAI-CR 4.50 and MAI-CR 1.10.
The evidence showed the victim was approached by four boys who demanded his valuables. After having complied he called out for assistance; there was a gun shot and he was mortally wounded. Defendant's confession corroborated that evidence and admitted holding the gun when it fired.
Defendant contends his pre-trial counsel coerced him to confess or failed to prevent him from doing so. We treat this contention as an attack on the voluntariness of the confession.
A prima facie showing of voluntariness is made when at all stages of the interrogation it appears the defendant is informed of his constitutional rights, that he understood those rights; that no coercion, promises, threats, or other unlawful means of inducement were employed. State v. Gibson, 547 S.W.2d 861(3) (Mo.App.1977).
The undisputed evidence here is that defendant was given Miranda warnings by a juvenile officer who explained each of those rights to him. He, his mother, the juvenile officer and his pre-trial counsel acknowledged in writing that he had been given those rights. The evidence about promises, coercion or other forms of inducement was conflicting. The credibility of witnesses testifying on voluntariness is within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Mussman, 526 S.W.2d 62, l. c. 64 (Mo.App.1975).
Defendant did not testify on the motion to suppress, but his mother testified his pre-trial counsel repeatedly told her son to make a statement to the juvenile authorities.
Defendant's pre-trial counsel testified he never urged defendant to make a statement. Rather, he initially advised defendant not to do so. When defendant expressed a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rapheld, 39871
...the witnesses. State v. Lyle, 511 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Mo.1974); State v. Crowley, 571 S.W.2d 460, 464-465 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Carroll, 562 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Hamell, 561 S.W.2d 357, 363 (Mo.App.1977). "(A) dmission of the confession into evidence by the trial court is ......
-
State v. Montgomery, 39828
... ... State v. Sykes, 565 S.W.2d 663 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Carroll, ... 562 S.W.2d 772 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Voyles, 561 S.W.2d 697 (Mo.App.1978) ... ...
-
State v. Blaylock
...of his rights, he understands those rights, and no threats, promises or coercion are used in obtaining the statement, State v. Carroll, 562 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Mo.App.1978), i.e., that the confession is a product of his free will, State v. Buckles, 636 S.W.2d 914, 923 (Mo. banc 1982), Blaylock......
-
Cole v. State, 10906
...a. m. and the verdict was returned at 10:13 a. m. The giving of MAI-CR 1.10 is discretionary with the trial court. State v. Carroll, 562 S.W.2d 772, 773(4) (Mo.App.1978). Here it was given after the jury had deliberated two hours and thirty minutes without reaching a verdict. The giving of ......