State v. Conley, KCD
| Decision Date | 06 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 541 S.W.2d 4 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eddie Joe CONLEY, Defendant-Appellant. 28063. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Larson, Public Defender, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Douglas N. Merritt, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Nanette Laughrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before DIXON, P.J., and PRITCHARD, C.J., and WASSERSTROM, J.
A jury convicted defendant of robbery in the first degree in violation of Section 560.120 RSMo 1969, and the court, in accordance with the verdict, sentenced him to ten years in prison.
Defendant assigns error in the overruling of his motion to suppress pre-trial identification testimony of two witnesses, and error in the refusal of the trial court to sustain a motion to quash the jury panel on the ground of a claimed systematic exclusion of females. The judgment is affirmed.
The robbery was perpetrated by four black men at a drive-in restaurant in Kansas City, Missouri in November of 1974. It was accomplished in daylight hours, and no disguises or masks were utilized by the robbers. The witnesses whose identification testimony is challenged were waitresses at the drive-in, one of them being a cashier at the register which the defendant emptied. This witness had a clear view of the defendant's face throughout the robbery which lasted from five to seven minutes and was able to provide the police with a description. This witness and the other employee witness examined many photographs and attended a number of lineups during the period of approximately two months following the event and finally identified one Chester Words as a part of the group who performed the robbery. After that identification of Chester Words, a photograph of the defendant was exhibited to the witnesses. They made a tentative identification, but indicated they would prefer seeing the individual in a lineup. Subsequently, they were independently shown a lineup containing the defendant, at which time they both made positive identification of the defendant. At trial both positively identified the defendant as a participant in the robbery.
What has been recited thur far constitutes the only evidence that was presented on the motion to suppress. At trial, these witnesses further testified on cross examination by defendant's counsel that they had been told by the police that Chester Words had implicated the defendant in the crime. One of the witnesses said that it was only after her tentative photographic identification; the other witness testified that the police statement occurred after the positive lineup identification.
The defendant's first claim of error is that the trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress the identification testimony. Upon the basis of the point, it is totally without merit because the only colorable contention of improper suggestion, the police officer's statements to the eyewitnesses, was not developed on the evidence taken on the motion to suppress. It entered the case only during the trial in chief when it was developed by the defendant on cross examination of the eyewitnesses. Defendant did preserve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conley v. White
.... Here, there was a mere oral assertion with no offer of proof; and that is a patently insufficient basis for his claim." State v. Conley, 541 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Mo.App.1976). Petitioner then filed motions under Missouri Rules 83.02 and 83.03, without success, but he did not file a postconviction......
-
State v. Trimble
...not necessarily require suppression of the eyewitness identification. State v. Burns, 581 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Conley, 541 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Mo.App.1976). It has already been observed that the investigating officers used an older picture of defendant in the photographic array ......
-
State v. Walker, 40479
...in the lineup tableau shared physical characteristics with him. State v. Burns, 581 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Conley, 541 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Mo.App.1976). The state introduced a police photograph of defendant with photographs of other individuals which had been displayed to the vict......
-
State v. Key, KCD
...failed to produce evidence to show that the method of selection of jurors resulted in a constitutionally deficient panel. State v. Conley, 541 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Amerison, 399 S.W.2d 53 (Mo.1966); State v. Davis, 462 S.W.2d 798 (Mo.1971); State v. Ransburg, 466 S.W.2d 691, ......