State v. Ferguson, 62968
| Decision Date | 10 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 62968,62968,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jimmie R. FERGUSON, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Gary L. Gardner, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County of the first degree murder of Robert Baum, a storekeeper, in Baum's place of business, while perpetrating the offense of robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
After appellant's arrest, appellant gave a statement to the police admitting the offense and led officers to various locations where shells, shell casings, and his partially burned jacket had been discarded. He also took officers to the location where he stated he disposed of the gun he used, but it was not found.
No issue is made as to the voluntariness of the statement, but appellant contends his arrest was unlawful, and, hence, his statement and the objects found and used in evidence were inadmissible as fruits of the illegal arrest.
A review of the facts adduced in the suppression hearing and the trial is required. The record of the suppression hearing reveals the following. Officer Lightfoot of the Kansas City Police Department, who had previous knowledge of the offense, received a call from a fellow officer, Sgt. Reeder, of the traffic division of the Kansas City Police Department, who indicated another employee in his department, one Pam Ferguson, wanted to talk to him (Lightfoot). Pam Ferguson took the telephone and explained to Lightfoot that she was the sister of the appellant, that appellant's girlfriend had told her that her brother, the appellant, was responsible for the shooting of Baum, that he was at her mother's house, and the gun appellant used might be found in an automobile belonging to the girlfriend's mother. She also expressed concern for the safety of her parents and the appellant, and requested that her identity as an informant not be revealed.
Officer Lightfoot and other officers then went immediately to the appellant's mother's address without a warrant for appellant's arrest. The officers explained it would have taken them at least two hours to get a warrant in view of the fact it was late at night, nearly midnight. Officer Lightfoot, Officer Reeder and another officer went to the front door of the residence, and other officers went to the back door.
Officer Lightfoot and Officer Reeder testified they knocked on the door and explained to parties inside that they were looking for the appellant to talk to him and that the door was voluntarily opened by occupants of the house who were later determined to be the appellant's father and one or more of his sisters, one of whom had invited them in. Upon their entry into the living room of the dwelling, they were told by one of the occupants that appellant was in the bathroom and, momentarily, the appellant appeared in the living room with one of the officers and was thereafter arrested, given his Miranda warning and taken into custody. Officer Lightfoot also testified appellant's mother, Mrs. Ferguson, drove up outside, parked her car and entered into the house after appellant had emerged from the bathroom and while appellant and officers were seated in the living room.
Appellant, by his mother, Mrs. Ferguson and his sister, Brenda, contended the officers were not voluntarily admitted, but pushed their way in unannounced.
The evidence disclosed Mrs. Ferguson was entering the house from a rear door at the same time the officers were entering the house after being admitted at the front door and that she was not in a position to observe who, if anyone, opened the door and admitted the officers. Brenda, appellant's sister, stated that she was near the front door talking to her mother at the time the officers entered, which contradicts her mother's testimony. The testimony of the various witnesses was contradictory as to whether the officers announced their purpose upon arriving at the front door.
The trial court clearly found the testimony of the officers to be believable and the contradictory testimony of appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnston
...inside, she is in here, she needs help." Entry of a residence upon consent of a resident in charge of the home is lawful. State v. Ferguson, 624 S.W.2d 840 (Mo.1981). We conclude initially, therefore, that Officer Rodden's presence in the house was the product of Johnston's Officer Rodden d......
-
Hunt v. State
...in); People v. Adams (1980), 91 Ill.App.3d 1059, 47 Ill.Dec. 605, 415 N.E.2d 610 (another tenant admitted the police); State v. Ferguson (Mo.1981), 624 S.W.2d 840 (consent by co-occupant); Feaster v. State (Okl.Crim.App.1981), 635 P.2d 617 (consent by b. Hunt's alleged demand for counsel. T......