State v. Dwyer, WD
| Decision Date | 17 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 847 S.W.2d 102 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Daniel W. DWYER, Respondent. 46169. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Hershel D. Shepherd, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Joseph, for appellant.
Frederick A. Duchardt, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Kearney, for respondent.
Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., and KENNEDY and BERREY, JJ.
The State appeals the trial court's sustention of defendant's motion in limine, by which the defendant, charged with first degree murder, first degree assault and armed criminal action, sought to exclude from the trial evidence of a prior uncharged assault.
Defendant argues that this court does not have jurisdiction of the state's appeal, but that jurisdiction is in the Supreme Court. Section 547.200.1(2) allows the State to take an appeal "from any order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in ... suppressing evidence." Subsection 3, upon which defendant rests his jurisdictional argument, provides as follows:
The appeal provided in subsection 1 of this section shall be an interlocutory appeal, filed in the appropriate district of the Missouri Court of Appeals, unless the proceedings involve a charge of capital murder or murder in the first degree, ... in which case notices of appeal shall be filed in the Supreme Court of Missouri. (emphasis supplied.)
Jurisdiction of our appellate courts is governed by Art. V, § 3 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, which states: Because jurisdiction of this court and our supreme court is fixed by the Constitution, it cannot be controlled or changed by statute. State ex rel. Wabash R. Co. v. Shain, 341 Mo. 19, 106 S.W.2d 898, 899 (1937); Junior College Dist. v. Mayse, 433 S.W.2d 541 (Mo.1968). We have jurisdiction.
Defendant says, next, the order is unappealable. He is correct in this contention, and we dismiss the appeal.
A ruling on an order in limine is not ordinarily appealable. "A ruling in limine is interlocutory only and is subject to change during the course of trial ... the motion in limine, in and of itself, presents nothing for appeal (citations omitted)." State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584, 592 (Mo. banc 1992).
The State claims the order in this case is appealable under Section 547.200.1. That statute gives the State the right of appeal from an order of the court "suppressing" evidence, or which has that substantive effect.
The in limine order which is sought to be appealed here is not an order "suppressing" evidence or having that substantive effect. Section 547.200.1 was not intended to allow the appeal of this order in limine. State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984).
The "suppression" of evidence is not the same thing as the exclusion of evidence on the basis of some rule of evidence. Suppression is a term used for evidence which is not objectionable as violating any rule of evidence, but which has been illegally obtained. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b), Section 542.296, RSMo 1986, Black's Law Dictionary ("motion to suppress", "suppression of evidence") 914, 1291 (5th Ed.1979). Evidence may be highly relevant and admissible as against all objections based upon the rules of evidence (i.e., hearsay, best evidence, parol evidence, relevancy, privileged communications, and the like), but yet may be suppressed because it was illegally obtained. Id.
A pre-trial motion for suppression is generally required in order to exclude illegally obtained evidence; otherwise, the objection is waived. The trial court will not ordinarily pause mid-trial to have an evidentiary hearing about the way in which an item of evidence was obtained. State v. Young, 534 S.W.2d 585 (Mo.App.1976). In the case of the evidence involved in this case, that is, evidence of defendant's other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Revelle, 20879
...denial of a motion to suppress, "to preserve the issue ... a specific objection" must be made when items are offered); State v. Dwyer, 847 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Mo.App.1992)(following a ruling on a motion in limine, the parties must proceed "as if no in limine ruling had been made"). "[I]t is re......
-
LDO, In Interest of
...Gillie v. State, 305 Ark. 296, 808 S.W.2d 320 (1991); State v. Medrano, 123 Idaho 114, 844 P.2d 1364 (Ct.App.1992); State v. Dwyer, 847 S.W.2d 102 (Mo.Ct.App.W.D.1992); State v. Karns, 608 N.E.2d 1145 (Ohio Ct.App. 1 Dist.1992); O'Neal v. State, 199 Ga.App. 757, 406 S.E.2d 247 (1991); Peopl......
-
State v. Powley
...movant is ‘entitled to lawful possession of the property’ under N.D.R.Crim.P. 41(e).") (citations omitted); see also State v. Dwyer , 847 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) ("The ‘suppression’ of evidence is not the same thing as the exclusion of evidence on the basis of some rule of evide......
-
State v. Strizich
...Hunt, J., dissenting). Since our decision in Yarns, several other jurisdictions have also considered this same issue. In State v. Dwyer (Mo.Ct.App.1992), 847 S.W.2d 102, the state appealed from the trial court's order in limine excluding prior acts of the defendant. Missouri, like Montana, ......