State v. Collett, No. 59313

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFINCH
Citation542 S.W.2d 783
Docket NumberNo. 59313
Decision Date08 November 1976
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward Eugene COLLETT, Appellant.

Page 783

542 S.W.2d 783
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Edward Eugene COLLETT, Appellant.
No. 59313.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
Nov. 8, 1976.

Page 784

Edward J. Bippen, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Paul R. Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

FINCH, Judge.

Defendant, found guilty on two counts charging robbery in the first degree with a dangerous and deadly weapon, was sentenced under the second offender act to two consecutive sentences of 27 years each in the custody of the Division of Corrections. On appeal the Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, affirmed. Thereafter, on application of defendant, the case was transferred to this court pursuant to Art. V, § 10, Mo.Const. We have reviewed the case as though here on direct appeal, and we affirm.

On the evening of March 31, 1973, Mary Osburg and Sandy Kempen were the employees operating a pizza parlor in St. Louis. A man came in and at gunpoint took money from the cash register and took the women's purses plus a jacket belonging to Sandy Kempen. He then left, ordering Mary Osburg to accompany him. Outside the pizza parlor, the man placed the jacket over Mary's head and then directed her to enter a truck and sit on the floor.

After driving for a while, the man stopped the truck and took Mary into a room, then he pulled her blouse, causing the buttons to come off. He tied her to the bed, later forced her into a small room, and finally returned her to the truck. He drove for a short time, releasing her on the side of a highway with her hands still tied and the jacket over her head. Mary succeeded in getting a car to stop and was then taken back to the pizz parlor in St. Louis.

On the morning of April 2, 1973, several Missouri officers went to Illinois in search of defendant on a charge of escape. They had information that he could be located at the Interstate Motor Inn on Collinsville Road. They had a warrant for his arrest which they took to an Illinois magistrate from whom they secured an arrest order for defendant. They did not seek or obtain a search warrant. At that time the officers did not know of any connection between defendant and the pizza parlor robbery.

Accompanied by Illinois deputy sheriffs, the officers then went to the Interstate Motor Inn. There the manager was shown several photographs. She picked out one of defendant, identifying him as a man registered in Room 102 of the motel under the name of Douglas Hurst. The officers then went to Room 102, the door of which was

Page 785

opened for them by the motel personnel. They proceeded immediately to search the room for defendant, looking in the bathroom, the shower area and under the bed. Upon entering the room, the officers had observed two women's purses on the floor next to the dresser. When they did not find defendant, they went to the purses. Looking inside, they found identifications of Sandy Kempen and Mary Osburg. They had heard Mary Osburg's name mentioned in radio dispatches on the pizza parlor robbery and also had read about it that morning in the police department summary of recent crimes.

Two of the officers were going to remain at the motel to await a possible return by Collett but after they learned over their radio that Collett had been arrested in Franklin County, Missouri, on an unrelated charge, all officers returned to St. Louis, bringing with them the two purses and their contents. They had not seized anything else in the room and took nothing else with them. Before leaving they asked the manager not to let anyone take anything from Room 102.

After the officers returned to St. Louis, the purses were identified by Mary Osburg and Sandy Kempen as those taken in the robbery. The officers also exhibited to each girl separately a group of 6 or 8 photographs which included defendant. In each instance the girl pointed out defendant as the one who had held up the pizza parlor.

The officers then took Mary Osburg and her mother to Illinois to the Interstate Motor Inn where Mary was shown Room 102. She identified it as the room to which she had been taken by defendant. While at the motel, she was shown four buttons and a set of keys which the motel manager had found in and removed from Room 102 after the police had left that morning. She identified the keys as hers and the buttons as those torn from her blouse by defendant.

The girls were then taken to Union, Missouri, where they observed separately a lineup of six persons including defendant. Each picked out defendant as the person who held up the pizza parlor.

Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the motel room including the two purses and the various identification cards contained therein. A hearing was held, after which the motion was overruled. At trial defendant objected to introduction of the purses, identification cards, the blouse buttons and the keys, the latter two both found by the motel manager. The objections were overruled.

At the outset, we note that a timely motion for new trial was not filed. The record on appeal does not show that the time for filing such a motion was extended by the trial court. However, even if the court had granted the maximum permissible extension to a total of 40 days, the motion filed still would have been out of time. Hence, whatever review is made of grounds asserted on appeal must be under Rule 27.20(c) which authorizes consideration of plain errors affecting substantial rights even though not properly preserved.

Defendant's first such contention involves the admissibility of certain evidentiary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • State v. Payne, No. 14334
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 30, 1981
    ...Minn. 491, 115 N.W.2d 247 (1962); Quarles v. State, 199 So.2d 58 (Miss.1967); State v. Hardy, 604 P.2d 792 (Mont.1980); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783 (Mo.1976); Davis v. State, 171 Neb. 333, 106 N.W.2d 490, cert. denied, 366 U.S. 973, 81 S.Ct. 1939, 6 L.Ed.2d 1262 (1960); Mathews v. Stat......
  • State v. Quinn, No. 38799
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 14, 1978
    ...all governmental searches and seizures or invasions of privacy but prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783, 787 (Mo. banc 1976). Of course, for the amendment to be applicable, there must be a "search" or "seizure." A "search" involves, of necessit......
  • Com. v. Terebieniec
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • August 10, 1979
    ...States v. Brown, 151 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 467 F.2d 419 (1972) (any premises; dictum); State v. Jones, supra (shared home); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783 (Mo.1976) (motel room); 7) If a search of other premises is permissible, the degree of probable cause required to believe that the suspect......
  • State v. Schneider, No. 67941
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1987
    ...it is apparent to the police that they have evidence before them. State v. Clark, 592 S.W.2d 709, 715 (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Mo. banc 1976). Neither the validity of the search warrant nor the officers' presence at the scene are contested, and the testimony a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • State v. Payne, No. 14334
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 30, 1981
    ...Minn. 491, 115 N.W.2d 247 (1962); Quarles v. State, 199 So.2d 58 (Miss.1967); State v. Hardy, 604 P.2d 792 (Mont.1980); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783 (Mo.1976); Davis v. State, 171 Neb. 333, 106 N.W.2d 490, cert. denied, 366 U.S. 973, 81 S.Ct. 1939, 6 L.Ed.2d 1262 (1960); Mathews v. Stat......
  • State v. Quinn, No. 38799
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 14, 1978
    ...all governmental searches and seizures or invasions of privacy but prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783, 787 (Mo. banc 1976). Of course, for the amendment to be applicable, there must be a "search" or "seizure." A "search" involves, of necessit......
  • Com. v. Terebieniec
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • August 10, 1979
    ...States v. Brown, 151 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 467 F.2d 419 (1972) (any premises; dictum); State v. Jones, supra (shared home); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783 (Mo.1976) (motel room); 7) If a search of other premises is permissible, the degree of probable cause required to believe that the suspect......
  • State v. Schneider, No. 67941
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1987
    ...it is apparent to the police that they have evidence before them. State v. Clark, 592 S.W.2d 709, 715 (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Mo. banc 1976). Neither the validity of the search warrant nor the officers' presence at the scene are contested, and the testimony a......
  • 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