State v. Duncan
| Citation | 540 S.W.2d 130 |
| Decision Date | 06 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 36972,36972 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Felix W. DUNCAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
James C. Jones, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Charles L. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals his conviction of murder in the second degree, for which he was sentenced to twenty (20) years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
On the evening of March 15, 1974, defendant went to the Hole in the Wall Tavern with LaVera Davenport. After a few minutes, they went to 1522 Elliott Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, where Ms. Davenport lived with Linda Jamison. Defendant asked for a shotgun, and Ms. Jamison gave him one which was in the kitchen. Ms. Davenport carried the shotgun back to the tavern for defendant. Defendant told her that he was 'going to get that man' and pointed out a man wearing a brown hat, brown jacket and brown pants.
At about 12:30 A.M., Ms. Jamison and Ms. Davenport returned home. Marvin Hemphill (Ms. Davenport's boyfriend) and two other men arrived shortly thereafter.
Ms. Jamison testified that between 2:00 to 2:30 A.M., defendant asked her for a clothes hanger, straightened it out and left with Hemphill, saying that he was going to steal a car. That was the last she saw of them before falling asleep.
At this point Ms. Davenport's testimony becomes crucial. According to her, defendant said that he was going to get a car and left alone with the shotgun but without the clothes hanger. When defendant returned with a billfold, his right hand was cut and bleeding. He said, '. . . 'I'm going to kill that mother.' . . .' Then he ran back outside with the shotgun, followed by Hemphill and Ms. Davenport. She observed defendant with the shotgun by a parked car. He was aiming at the car window and fired two shots. Ms. Davenport stated unequivocally that Hemphill did not have the shotgun. Defendant and Hemphill transferred a man from the front to the back seat of the parked car and drove off.
Ms. Willie Burch, who resided in the 2700 block of Howard Street, testified that between 2:00 and 2:30 A.M., on March 16, 1974, she heard three shots. Noises, like someone running, attracted her attention, so she looked out her back bedroom window. She saw two girls in the next yard and defendant coming into her backyard. Defendant ran up a gangway near the kitchen door. There was a noise with the trash can. Then defendant left her yard, and she heard an argument from the next yard. Although Ms. Burch could not make out the entire dialogue she recognized several statements as being those of defendant's. Defendant made a statement about '. . . somebody help him to do something . . .' Defendant was concerned with 'fixing something or trying to unfix something.' Ms. Burch testified, 'There was something said, but I didn't tell you to shoot, I said pull it' and that defendant responded, '. . . the guy could identify him or something.' Ms. Burch knew Hemphill and stated that he was not a party to the conversation. Defendant went down the ally toward Elliott Avenue, while the two girls and another boy went down Howard Street. The next Monday night, when Ms. Burch emptied her trash can, she found a shotgun in three parts.
At some time prior to 4:20 A.M., on March 16, 1974, defendant and Hemphill brought a body to City Hospital No. 2 in a 1971 Pontiac with the front two door windows completely shattered. The cause of death was a shotgun would on the right side of the face.
Defendant and Hemphill were taken to the Ninth District Police Station to be questioned as possible witnesses to the shooting; they were not considered suspects. Under these circumstances, without being placed under arrest or advised of his constitutional rights, defendant made a statement between 7:30 A.M. and 8:30 A.M. Defendant and Hemphill were first considered as suspects when their statements were inconsistent. Then a gunshot residue test was administered. Defendant was next questioned at about 2:00 P.M. At that time, defendant was told that he was under arrest and charged with murder. He was given his rights. After each right, he indicated that he understood and waived his rights. Defendant then gave a second statement. He said that he had not told the truth in the first statement. He said that he was close to the deceased when the incident occurred but that Hemphill was the perpetrator.
A senior research chemist from the Environmental Trace Substances Research Center at the University of Missouri used neutron activation analysis (hereafter NAA) to interpret the gunshot residue tests administered to defendant and Hemphill. He testified that both defendant and Hemphill had handled and discharged a firearm.
On appeal defendant raises four points as error. First, he contends that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence because the state failed to establish that the victim's death was caused by defendant. Second, he contends that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion to suppress his second statement because it was tainted by a prior inadmissible statement. Third, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a sawed-off shotgun, because no foundation was laid and it was irrelevant. Fourth, he contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the purported shirt and pants of the victim, because these exhibits were not identified by the witnesses and no chain of custody was shown.
Defendant's first contention comes to us in a novel posture. Typically, a defendant asserts that positive results in his own gunshot residue tests are inadmissible because NAA lacks reliability. State v. Stevens, 467 S.W.2d 10 (Mo.1970); State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 493 (Mo.App.1976) and State v. Ross, 523 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.App.1975). Here, on the contrary, defendant is asking us to hold that NAA results are not only admissible but so conclusive that positive results on both defendant and another person will negate eyewitness testimony that defendant alone fired the gun. If the interpretation of NAA results were to overcome Ms. Davenport's testimony, the state would have proved that defendant fired a gun but would have failed to exclude the hypothesis that the victim was already mortally wounded by a shot from Hemphill. According to defendant's logic, since the state has the burden of proving all the elements of second degree murder, including proof that the defendant's act caused death, the state failed to make a prima facie case.
Defendant relies upon the so-called 'physical facts' rule:
'Testimony of a witness, although not directly controverted, which is opposed to the unquestioned laws of nature that lie within the court's judicial knowledge or which is clearly in conflict with scientific principles as established by the laws of physics or mechanics is of no probative value . . . (U)pon review the appellate court may ignore the testimony or reverse the case for lack of evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. . . .' 30 Am.Jr.2d, Evidence, § 1086. See e.g., Gilpin v. Gerbes Supermarket, Inc., 446 S.W.2d 615 (Mo.banc 1969); Kelly v. Terminal RR Ass'n of St. Louis, 315 S.W.2d 699 (Mo.1958); Ochs v. Wilson, 427 S.W.2d 748 (Mo.App.1968); Ewen v. Spence, 405 S.W.2d 521 (Mo.App.1966).
The 'physical facts' rule applies only when the conflicting testimony goes to some vital issue in the case. Vaeth v. Gegg, 486 S.W.2d 625, 628 (Mo.1972) and State v. Davis, 504 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Mo.App.1973). The rule does not apply to the credibility of witnesses, which is for the jury. Anderson v. Orscheln Bros. Truck Lines, 393 S.W.2d 452, 460 (Mo.1965) and State v. Davis, supra, at 223. Nor does it apply to estimates. Anderson v. Orscheln Bros. Truck Lines, supra, and Wood v. Ezell, 342 S.W.2d 503 (Mo.App.1961).
The short answer to defendant's first contention is that it is essentially a claim of insufficient evidence. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court is required to consider the evidence and any reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and to disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Stapleton, 518 S.W.2d 292 (Mo.Banc 1975) and State v. Burks, 521 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Mo.App.1975). Construed in this manner, the evidence is more than sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for murder in the second degree. The testimony of Ms. Jamison, Ms. Davenport and Ms. Burch, as well as the state's exhibits, the results of defendant's gunshot residue test, the cause of death as determined by the autopsy, and defendant's arriving at the hospital with the victim and his subsequent statements to the police constitute sufficient evidence to show that appellant fired the shotgun blast which killed Henry DeBerry. All contrary evidence and inferences such as the gunshot residue test of Marvin Hemphill, are therefore disregarded. Clearly, the state made a submissible case.
Considered on the merits, defendant's first contention would raise an issue of first impression. We have been unable to find a decision ascertaining the probative force to be accorded NAA results in relation to the 'physical facts' rule. Further, we emphasize at the outset that this determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. Application of the 'physical facts' rule would require positive responses to two questions: First, is NAA an incontrovertible fact? Second, does it directly contradict the eyewitness testimony?
Regarding the former, NAA is an extremely accurate, widely accepted method of determining the elemental composition of a sample. State v. Ross, supra. However, since the NAA results by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Noblesville Casting Div. of TRW, Inc. v. Prince
...F.2d 431, cert. denied 401 U.S. 994, 91 S.Ct. 1232, 28 L.Ed.2d 531; State v. Jackson, (1978) Mo.App., 566 S.W.2d 227; State v. Duncan, (1976) Mo.App., 540 S.W.2d 130. The neutron activation analysis has been generally recognized as reliable." Jones v. State, supra, 425 N.E.2d at Given this ......
-
Jones v. State
...F.2d 431, cert. denied 401 U.S. 994, 91 S.Ct. 1232, 28 L.Ed.2d 531; State v. Jackson, (1978) Mo.App., 566 S.W.2d 227; State v. Duncan, (1976) Mo.App., 540 S.W.2d 130. The neutron activation analysis has been generally recognized as reliable. As was noted with regard to trace metal detection......
-
State v. Gaskin, 61433
...on review we are limited to a determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial court's finding. State v. Duncan, 540 S.W.2d 130 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Tippett, 588 S.W.2d 742 (Mo.App.1979). A photograph of each lineup was introduced in evidence, but neither exhibit......
-
State v. Murphy
... ... Weapons and objects not connected with the defendant or the crime are not admissible unless they possess some probative value. State v. Hughes, 596 S.W.2d 723, 727-728(7-9) (Mo.banc 1980); State v. Duncan, 540 S.W.2d 130, 136(12-16) (Mo.App.1976); State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 493, 515(45, 46) (Mo.App.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 934, 97 S.Ct. 1558, 51 L.Ed.2d 779 (1977). The connection of demonstrative evidence to the accused or the crime charged may be so remote as to make the evidence ... ...