State v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 22 August 2000 |
| Citation | 31 S.W.3d 73 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) . State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Hosea J. Edwards, Appellant WD56953 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Werner A. Moentmann, Judge
Counsel for Appellant: Marc R.H. Joseph
Counsel for Respondent: Krista D. Boston
Opinion Summary: Hosea Edwards was convicted of first-degree assault and armed criminal action for stabbing his girlfriend with a knife, and was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to seven years imprisonment for first-degree assault and fifteen years imprisonment for armed criminal action. On appeal, he argues that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting a tape and transcript of the victim's 911 call for help into evidence, as it was admitted for its truth despite the fact that it contained hearsay identifying Edwards as the assailant, and allegedly did not fit within any hearsay exception. Edwards also argues that the court erred in permitting the State to introduce two knives found at the scene into evidence despite the fact that neither was directly connected to the stabbing of the victim.
AFFIRMED.
Division Two holds:
The 911 tape itself did qualify as a business record. A qualified witness testified to his knowledge of the tape's identity and mode of preparation, and that the record was made in the regular course of business of the police department. However, because the hearsay statements in the tape were offered for their truth, an additional exception to the hearsay rule must apply to allow the statements on the tape to be admitted into evidence.
The excited utterance exception applied to the statements on the tape. The record permitted the court to find that the call occurred shortly after the knifing and that at the time of the call the caller was still in a state of excitement.
While neither knife was shown to have been the one used to stab the victim, both were found at the scene of the crime shortly after it occurred. One knife had blood on it, and the other was in the kitchen sink in water. While introduction of weapons unconnected with a crime and which lack any probative value has been held to be reversible error, this Court cannot say on these facts that the knives lacked any probative value or had no connection with the crime. Moreover, the testimony of an investigating officer about finding the knives was admitted without objection. In fact, defense counsel questioned him about the knives, argued their irrelevance, and allowed the State to argue their relevance without objection. Accordingly, admission of the knives themselves was merely cumulative, and Edwards did not suffer undue prejudice from their admission.
Hosea Edwards was convicted of first-degree assault and armed criminal action for stabbing his girlfriend with a knife, and was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to seven years imprisonment for first-degree assault and fifteen years imprison-ment for armed crimin-al action. On appeal, he argues that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting a tape and transcript of the victim's 911 call for help into evidence, as it was admitted for its truth despite the fact that it contained hearsay identifying Defendant as the assailant, and allegedly did not fit within any hearsay exception. Defendant also argues that the court erred in permitting the State to introduce two knives found at the scene into evidence despite the fact that neither was directly connected to the stabbing of the victim.
We find that the 911 tape and transcript themselves were properly qualified as business records, and that the content of the 911 tape was admissible for its truth under the excited utter-ance exception to the hearsay rule. We further find that the admission of the knives found by the police at defendant's and the victim's home shortly after the crime was not reversible error despite the failure of police to definitively tie them to the crime. Accordingly, we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following evidence was adduced: At approximately 2 a.m. on November 15, 1997, a woman placed a 911 emergency call to the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department. In an excited voice and while trying to regain her breath, her conversation with the 911 operator was as follows:
911 OP: 911, dis-
Caller: I need the, I need the police at 3924 Forest. I need an ambulance.
911 OP: What's going on?
Caller: I've been cut.
911 OP: Who cut you?
Caller: Uh, Hosea Edwards.
911 OP: Okay. Is he still there?
Caller: Yes, he is.
911 OP: Okay, what does he look like?
Caller: He's about 5'8", 5'9".
Caller: Lily Haney.
911 OP: Okay. Is that a house or an apartment?
Caller: It's a house. 3924 Forest.
Caller: Thank you.
Within three minutes after learning of the 911 call, Officer Brian Hayes and two other Kansas City, Missouri police officers arrived at 3924 Forest, the address given in the 911 call. A woman was standing on the front porch. The officer was asked at trial whether the woman had identified herself as Lillie Haney, but an objection to this question based on hearsay was sustained. However, the officer was permitted to testify that the woman was waiting for them on the porch of the house indicated in the 911 call and that she told the officers that she had been cut. Officer Hayes saw a four-by-six inch cut on her left shoulder which he described at trial as "deep and open" but not bleeding. He also observed a small laceration to the palm of her right hand and swelling over her right eye. When asked at trial what her demeanor had been when the officers arrived, Officer Hayes testified as follows:
Officer: She was - for the seriousness of her injury, she was pretty calm and calm with us as far as trying to help.
Counsel: So she was cooperative?
Officer: Yeah. She was cooperative.
Counsel: And was she upset or?
Officer: She was upset. She wasn't irrational, distressed, not cooperating with us. She was able - letting us do our job.
Counsel: Okay. And was she - when she was talking, what was her voice like?
Officer: It was calm. It wasn't irrational.
Counsel: Okay. Was it loud?
Officer: Yeah. It was loud. It was loud.
When the ambulance arrived, one officer remained with the victim, while Officer Hayes and the other officer entered the house and went upstairs. They found only one other person in the house, a man. He was standing in the middle of one of the upstairs bedrooms. They put him in handcuffs and placed him in the patrol car, under arrest. He was identified as the Defendant, Hosea Edwards. Defendant later signed a waiver of his Miranda rights and gave a statement to police, in which he admitted that he had a verbal altercation with Ms. Haney that night, and admitted he had been very intoxicated and later had passed out. He said he had no memory of cutting her with the knife, but when he woke up he saw that she had been cut.
In the meantime, the ambulance attendants examined the victim and decided that she needed to be placed into the ambulance for immediate transport to the hospital because of the seriousness of her injuries. Officer Hayes followed the ambulance to the hospital. He took photo--graphs of her injuries and spoke with her for about 15 minutes as she was being attended in the emergency room. The conversation took place about 40 minutes from the time that the police first arrived at the house. Officer Hayes was unable to testify as to much of his conversation with the victim because counsel for Defendant objected to the officer's repetition of most of her statements to him as hearsay. The officer did note that she gave him permission to search the house at 3942 Forest.
After talking with the victim, Officer Hayes and other officers returned to 3942 Forest and searched the premises. The detectives collected a variety of items with apparent blood spots on them, including two bed sheets, a pillow case, one roll of plastic trash bags, and an empty one-liter bottle of Pepsi. One of the detectives also saw a red streak that appeared to be blood on the right-hand side of the wall going up the second flight of stairs, and the detectives found apparent blood spots on the telephone in the bedroom where Defendant was found. They also found a silver-colored knife with a bent blade that appeared to have blood on it on the lower shelf of a coffee table in the living room, and took it. In the kitchen, the detectives found and collected a large kitchen knife with a black handle among other utensils and dishes in the sink. There was no blood on the kitchen knife. Neither of the knives was tested for fingerprints nor was any attempt made to match them with the laceration.
Defendant was charged with one count of first-degree assault in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo. 1994 and one count of armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo. 1994. Ms. Haney refused to testify at trial, invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, despite being subpoenaed by Defendant. Over defense counsel's objection, the State was permitted to introduce the 911 tape and a transcript of the tape at trial, based on the theory that the tape was a business record and the statements on the tape fell within the "excited utterances" exception to the hearsay rule. The State was also permitted to introduce the bloody knife found in the living room and the kitchen knife found in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patrick
..." ‘anonymity is not fatal to the admissibility of the statements once the statements qualify within the exception." ’ State v. Edwards , 31 S.W.3d 73, 80 (Mo. App. 2000) (quoting State v. Dunn , 821 S.W.2d 512, 516 (Mo. App. 1991) ). In particular, "anonymity of the speaker is not a bar to ......
-
State v. Johnson
...as he claims, that is attributable to the officer's testimony, not the admission of the ammunition itself. See State v. Edwards , 31 S.W.3d 73, 82 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (finding no additional prejudice from admission into evidence of knives found in defendant's home where officer previously ......
-
Lindsay v. Mazzio's Corp.
...utterance" as a firmly-rooted exception to the hearsay rule. See State v. Costa, 11 S.W.3d 670, 679 (Mo.App.1999). In State v. Edwards, 31 S.W.3d 73 (Mo.App.2000), our colleagues from the western district of this court summed the essential attributes of this exception in the following The e......
-
State v. Mozee
...decision on an evidentiary matter if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial. State v. Edwards, 31 S.W.3d 73, 77 (Mo.App. W.D.2000). In this regard, the State argues, in cursory fashion, that any error in admitting Officer Balmer's testimony about the pho......
-
Dial-in testimony.
...complainant recanted after the defendant was arrested and indicated that she would invoke Fifth Amendment privilege); State v. Edwards, 31 S.W.3d 73, 76-77 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (using a 911 tape to prove a case where complainant invokes her Fifth amendment privilege); State v. Archuleta, 955......