State v. Franklin, 54527
| Decision Date | 12 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 54527,No. 1,54527,1 |
| Citation | 448 S.W.2d 583 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert L. FRANKLIN, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Peter H. Ruger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Jerry D. Perryman, St. Louis, for appellant.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
A jury in the St. Louis Circuit Court found Robert L. Franklin guilty of statutory rape. § 559.260, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. The court, acting under the Second Offender Act, fixed the punishment at five years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
On October 24, 1968, the fourteen-year-old victim of the offense was returning to her residence in St. Louis at around 10:00 A.M. She met the defendant, whom she had known previously. Defendant inquired whether anyone was at the girl's house. When she told him no one was there, he requested her to take him to her house. The girl demurred and he told her 'to just be quiet.' The two entered the girl's apartment and over her protest the defendant had sexual intercourse with her.
The defendant left after about 20 minutes. The girl called her mother and told her what had occurred. Her mother came home and called the police. The girl told the police that Robert Franklin had committed the act, but she did not know his address. The girl was taken to City Hospital, where a test of a smear taken from her showed the presence of male spermatoza. Seminal stains were found on the panties worn by the girl.
The defendant testified and denied the charge. He acknowledged that he knew the girl by sight, but denied having been in her apartment on October 24, 1968. He testified that, from September to November, 1968, he was working at a boiler plant on the night shift and that he came home daily at about 7:00 A.M. and went to bed. The defendant's mother corroborated his testimony about his work and sleeping routine in October, 1968.
On this appeal, the allegations of error relate to the out-of-court identification of defendant by the girl. The girl told the police that Robert Franklin was the name of the person who had intercourse with her. Franklin was arrested on November 20, 1968. The police were unsuccessful in locating him until that date, although they found his residence and were there on several occasions in an effort to apprehend him. He was taken to the Third District Police Headquarters. The girl was called to the station and identified Franklin who appeared before her alone. The officer present at the time acknowledged that he had not advised the defendant that he had the right to have counsel present at the time of the confrontation with the girl.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress the in-court identification of the accused on the grounds that the pre-trial identification at the police station was unlawful and prejudicial to the defendant's rights. The court conducted a hearing at which the girl testified that she had known the defendant from having seen him and talked to him on at least four occasions prior to October 24, 1968; that she recognized him at the time of the occurrence in question and that she told police the name of the defendant.
The trial court found that in-court identification of defendant by the girl would be based on her acquaintanceship with the defendant prior to the occurrence and would not be based on the police station confrontation. He overruled the motion. The girl did, of course, identify defendant at the trial.
On this appeal, appellant contends that the police station identification of defendant by the girl in a face-to-face confrontation without counsel violated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
... ... v. Franklin, Mo., 448 S.W.2d 583, 584. Robbery cases all but directly in point are State v. Tehee, Mo., 445 S.W.2d 285; State v. Williams, Mo., 448 S.W.2d 865; ... ...
-
State v. Wright
...at 1957. This part of the point was not preserved for appellate review. State v. Brownridge, Mo., 459 S.W.2d 317, 320(8); State v. Franklin, Mo., 448 S.W.2d 583, 584(2). At the close of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court determined that the in-court identification of def......
-
State v. Corlew
...basis and was admissible notwithstanding lack of counsel at the station. State v. Mentor. Mo., 433 S.W.2d 816, 818; State v. Franklin, Mo., 448 S.W.2d 583, 584. In point one defendant argues the indictment should have been quashed. This for the reason, Sanders, at the station, 'learned from......
-
State v. Brownridge, 48607
...of the objection in the motion for new trial, must be made in order to preserve the point for appellate review. State v. Franklin, Mo.Sup., 448 S.W.2d 583, 584(2). We have reviewed the question, despite the waiver, and have determined that regardless of the propriety of the identification a......