State v. Coyne, 54012
| Decision Date | 13 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 54012,No. 2,54012,2 |
| Citation | 452 S.W.2d 227 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas Joseph A. COYNE, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Peter H. Ruger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Tonv Eberwein, Clayton, for appellant.
PRITCHARD, Commissioner.
This case involves appeals from four separate felony convictions. In case No. 281008 a jury found appellant guilty of the crime of rape and assessed his punishment at forty years imprisonment in the Department of Corrections. In case No. 281009, upon an indictment of the crime of sodomy appellant entered his plea of guilty and was sentenced by the court to forty years imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence in case No. 281008. In case No. 281010, an indictment for assault with intent to do great bodily harm, appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to forty years imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences in cases Nos. 281008 and 281009. In case No. 281011, an indictment for operating and using an automobile without the consent of the owner, appellant also pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years imprisonment to run concurrently with cases Nos. 281008, 281009 and 281010. All of the sentences were imposed on September 26, 1967, and in each case credit was given for time previously spent in jail.
During the trial of the rape case, and on entering his pleas of guilty in the other cases, appellant was represented by counsel from the St. Louis County Public Defender's office. No motion for new trial was filed in any case, and at the time appellant appeared for sentencing in the rape case he did, by counsel, specifically waive his right to appeal in that case. In all the cases appellant was granted a special order of appeal by this court on July 9, 1968.
In two points appellant contends that his federally guaranteed constitutional rights were violated. These points are not here asserted § plain error affecting his substantial rights under Supreme Court Rule 27.20(c), V.A.M.R. They will be examined to ascertain if they fall within that rule because such constitutional rights are involved. State v. Beasley, Mo., 404 S.W.2d 689, 690; State v. Reynolds, Mo., 422 S.W.2d 278, 280(1, 2).
The first point is that the court erred in allowing the state to exclude by challenges on voir dire examination members of the jury panel who had moral or religious objection to the death penalty. Cited is Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776. The point is without merit for two reasons. First, the objection was not made prior to the jury being sworn, but was made at the close of the case, which is too late under State v. Schleicher, Mo., 442 S.W.2d 19, 21(4). But more importantly, the Witherspoon case applies only to cases wherein the death penalty for an offense is actually imposed by a jury. See Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797, 800(1--3). Here appellant received a sentence of forty years for his conviction of the crime of rape.
For Point II, appellant urges that the court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence, a statement given to the police. The motion was taken up outside the hearing of the jury. Appellant testified on this hearing that the police officers did not advise him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and that he gave an oral statement to the police. He says in his brief that he made the oral statement indicating that he had no knowledge of the alleged offense. The transcript does not show any such indication, but only that he gave a statement pertaining to the charge of rape. The testimony of the officers was that prior to questioning appellant was advised of his rights to contact a lawyer, friend or relative, to have a lawyer present at the time of interview, that if he could not afford an attorney one would be provided without cost, that he did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mitchell, 61839
...248, 251 (Mo.1972); State v. Richards, 467 S.W.2d 33, 36 (Mo.1971); State v. Quinn, 461 S.W.2d 812, 814-15 (Mo.1970); State v. Coyne, 452 S.W.2d 227, 228 (Mo.1970); State v. Warters, 457 S.W.2d 808, 812 (Mo.1970); State v. Franklin, 459 S.W.2d 314, 316 (Mo.1970); State v. Pollard, 447 S.W.2......
-
State v. Gant
...by Rule 27.20(c) since "plain error" culminating in a "manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice" may have resulted. State v. Coyne, 452 S.W.2d 227, 228 (Mo.1970); State v. Donnell, 430 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Mo.1968); and State v. Williams, 419 S.W.2d 49, 53 (Mo.1967). However, for reasons he......
-
State v. Howell, 10185
...(Rule 27.20(c), V.A.M.R.) because of the contention that defendant's federally guaranteed rights were violated (State v. Coyne, 452 S.W.2d 227, 228(1) (Mo.1970); State v. Fields, 538 S.W.2d 348, 350(2) (Mo.App.1976)), and the claim that the essential elements of first degree murder were not......
-
State v. Callahan, WD
...550 S.W.2d 793 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Howell, 543 S.W.2d 836 (Mo.App.1976). This review may even be undertaken sua sponte. State v. Coyne, 452 S.W.2d 227 (Mo.1970); State v. Jackson, 495 S.W.2d 80 Several factors combine to make application of Rule 29.12(b) appropriate in this case. Failur......