State v. Floyd
| Decision Date | 18 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 40674,40674 |
| Citation | 598 S.W.2d 517 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stevie A. FLOYD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James F. Booth, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Bruce E. Anderson, Lew A. Kollias, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
A jury found defendant, Stevie A. Floyd, guilty of murder in the second degree and the court sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
The evidence adduced at trial tended to show that on July 10, 1977 at dusk the defendant Floyd accompanied by Jackey Watson left a party, given by Bonnie Barkley, in an angry mood. Floyd, stating that he "wanted to get that son-of-a-bitch" left with Watson carrying a pistol and a shotgun.
Mr. Faul testified that on July 10, 1977, he was employed as a security guard at a produce market located at North Market and Second Street. On that evening at "dusk" Mr. Faul heard a gunshot blast. He immediately turned and saw a station wagon leaving by way of Market toward Broadway. Mr. Faul stated that he could tell that there were two people in the station wagon but was unable to describe them. The witness noted the license number of the station wagon which was later found to be registered to the defendant.
Mr. Taylor, another witness for the State, testified that he was also at the produce market on July 10, 1977 at dusk. He saw a station wagon backing down North Market following the victim. Two armed white men emerged from the automobile. One of them fired a shotgun at the victim causing his death. The two men got back into the station wagon, immediately leaving the scene. Another witness who was on produce row that day testified that he saw a black man running down Market being followed by a station wagon. Two white men got out of the automobile each of them armed. The witness heard several shots fired, one of them a shotgun blast. The two white men then left in the station wagon.
The defendant and Watson returned to the party. Bonnie Barkley testified that the defendant handed her a warm shotgun and told her to hide it. He stated he knew "that they got that black son-of-a-bitch because . . . they blowed the back of his head off."
Defendant's first point on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to submit an alibi instruction to the jury.
The defendant contends that the testimony given by Bernadine Flieger, a witness for the State, supports his requested alibi instruction. Ms. Flieger stated that she was also a guest of Bonnie Barkley's the day of July 10, 1977, although she could not remember what time she arrived at the party. During the course of the party, Ms. Flieger left twice to visit the neighborhood grill. The first time she went she stayed approximately thirty to forty-five minutes. It was daylight when she left the party to go to the grill and it was still daylight when she returned. Ms. Flieger stated that it was still daylight when she went to the grill the second time but dark when she returned to Bonnie's party. Ms. Flieger later contradicted her testimony by stating that it was still light when she returned from the grill the second time. She stayed "a few minutes" at the party then went home. Ms. Flieger testified that she saw the defendant at the party before she went to the grill the first time, after her return and again after she returned from the grill the second time. She "thought" the defendant was still there when she left the party.
All that we can presume from this testimony is that Ms. Flieger did not see the defendant leave the party. This conclusion is not helpful to the defendant particularly in light of Ms. Flieger's own statement that she could not remember what time she had arrived at the party, what time she went to the grill, how long she remained there or exactly when she went home. Ms. Flieger was vague and self-contradicting on the issue most crucial to defendant's alibi, that of the light conditions upon her return from the grill the second time. If it was light when she returned from the grill and if she remained at the party until after dark as she testified at one point, this would have perhaps given defendant an alibi provided she could testify that he did not leave the party at one point during this time. She did not, however, testify as to defendant's continued presence at the party. Evidence which may account for the defendant's presence during only a part of the time in which a crime could have been committed will not support an alibi instruction. State v. McLane, 55 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Mo.1932).
If it was light when Ms. Flieger left the party for the grill and dark when she returned, as she so stated at another point in her testimony, defendant could have easily driven the sixteen blocks to the scene of the murder and returned to the party during dusk. This testimony is so contradictory on facts necessary to defendant's alibi that it lacks any probative force as to these issues. State v. Lawrence, 566 S.W.2d 243, 246 (Mo.App.1978). The defendant did not attempt on cross-examination to clarify this contradiction to his benefit and the testimony, as it appears on the record, does not constitute evidence of alibi sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's participation in the crime. State v. Reynolds, 517 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Mo.App.1974). Point one is ruled against defendant.
Defendant's second claim is that the trial court erred in overruling defense counsel's objection to the prosecutor's statement in argument that if defense counsel believed Ms. Barkley's testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Loggins, 49332
...or call a witness is not a direct and certain reference. State v. Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Floyd, 598 S.W.2d 517, 521 (Mo.App.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 960, 101 S.Ct. 373, 66 L.Ed.2d 227 In the present case, the trial court did not commit plain error in fa......
-
State v. Webster
...indicates that the witness would be more likely to testify more favorably for one party than another. Valentine, supra; State v. Floyd, 598 S.W.2d 517 (Mo.App.1980). In the instant case, it may be argued that defendant was in a position superior to that of the state's to call Carla Thomas a......
-
State v. Reagan
...it will not support the submission of an alibi instruction. See State v. Kimball, 624 S.W.2d 158, 159 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Floyd, 598 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Mo.App.1980). There was no defense evidence to support an alibi for the period of time in which the state's evidence showed the bomb was ......
-
State v. Williams
...647 (Mo.1942) (2); State v. Johnson, 529 S.W.2d 166 (Mo.App.1975) (1); State v. Ganaway, 556 S.W.2d 67 (Mo.App.1977) (3); State v. Floyd, 598 S.W.2d 517 (Mo.App.1980) (3, 4). We find no Defendant's final point concerns the racial composition of the jury. The matter is raised for the first t......