State v. French
| Decision Date | 23 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 36535,36535 |
| Citation | 528 S.W.2d 170 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Morris D. FRENCH, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles D. Kitchin, Public Defender, James C. Jones, Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Timothy D. Verhagen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., Mark A. Brown, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant Morris D. French was convicted by a jury on two counts of robbery in the first degree with a dangerous and deadly weapon in violation of §§ 560.120 and 560.135, RSMo 1969, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. Defendant appeals from his conviction. He asserts that the trial court erred in failing to sustain his motion to suppress identification testimony; first, because he was arrested without probable cause, and secondly, because the circumstances of the confrontation were impermissibly suggestive and thus violative of due process of law. He also asserts error in permitting the testimony of a police officer regarding the preparation of arrest registers and the reading of his co-defendant's address therefrom.
The facts are as follows: On October 31, 1973, at 8:00 p.m., two patrons and the owner of a tavern observed three men standing outside the front door. The two occupants of the tavern watched as two of the men entered with rifles and announced a holdup. A shot was fired, striking one of the victims, Mr. Zollie Tate. The two men then ordered the three to lie on the floor. They took money from the cash register demanded money and additional items from the two uninjured patrons and left. Mr. Johnson, the tavern owner, went to assist one of the patrons, Mr. Tate, while the other patron, Miss Grady, telephoned the police.
Officer Von Dracek was driving west on Benton at 8:00 p.m., a short distance from the tavern, when he observed three men running toward him carrying rifles. He followed them to an alley and then pursued them on foot while his partner notified the dispatcher what was occurring. Another police officer, Donald Preston, heard a general police broadcast at about 8:03 p.m. that officers were pursuing two men carrying rifles in the area of St. Louis Park. Rapid communications led the dispatcher to believe that the subjects were confined to a limited area and cars were stationed at various points to prevent escape. Officer Preston was sent to the intersection of Twentieth Street and St. Louis Avenue. Subsequent to parking at this location, Officer Preston heard another broadcast notifying officers of a robbery at Twenty-Second and Benton, the same area in which the chase was occurring. At 8:09 p.m. Officer Preston observed defendant running toward him through a vacant lot. The officer testified that defendant noticed him, stopped, and began walking toward him. Officer Preston got out of his car and approached defendant. He saw that defendant was perspiring, breathing hard, and, when he placed his hand on his chest, that his heart was beating rapidly. Defendant was placed under arrest and returned to the scene of the robbery.
Miss Grady gave the first officers to arrive at the tavern a description of the clothing worn by two of the robbers. Shortly thereafter, within approximately ten or fifteen minutes of the robbery, defendant was brought into the bar accompanied by several police officers and identified as one of the robbers by Miss Grady and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Tate had been taken to the hospital and was not present. Defendant's testimony describing the clothing he was wearing when arrested fit the description given to police by Miss Grady prior to the confrontation. Both Miss Grady and Mr. Johnson testified at trial that they had identified defendant as one of the robbers at the time of the initial confrontation at the tavern and also pointed him out in the courtroom. Mr. Tate, who was not present at the confrontation in the tavern, identified defendant both at the preliminary hearing and at trial.
We reject defendant's contention that the identification evidence should have been suppressed because Officer Preston lacked probable cause to arrest him. Defendant apparently would raise the question of whether the identification of an accused constitutes an illegal search and seizure requiring suppression of the identification upon proper motion. But identification is in no way related to a search or seizure. Invalidity of an arrest does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to try the defendant. State v. Britton, 444 S.W.2d 465 (Mo.1969). Furthermore, the circumstances here were clearly sufficient to call the officer's attention to the suspect, to raise more than a mere suspicion, and, therefore, to justify an arrest. State v. Dodson, 491 S.W.2d 334, 336(3) (Mo.banc 1973).
It is well settled in this state that there is no prohibition against returning a freshly apprehended suspect to the scene of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walberg v. State
...283; City of Mercer Island v. Crouch (1975), 12 Wash.App. 472, 530 P.2d 344; Webber v. State (Okl.Cr.1975), 545 P.2d 795; State v. French (Mo.App.1975), 528 S.W.2d 170; People v. Lee (1975), 84 Misc.2d 192, 375 N.Y.S.2d 812; People v. Pagan (1975), 84 Misc.2d 565, 377 N.Y.S.2d 420.4 See: Ke......
-
State v. Armbruster
...State v. Dodson, 491 S.W.2d 334, 336(3--5) (Mo. banc 1973); State v. Smith, 465 S.W.2d 482, 484(1) (Mo.1971); State v. French, 528 S.W.2d 170, 173(7) (Mo.App.1975). Missouri cases have approved the practice of law officers taking a criminal to the scene for immediate identification by the v......
-
State v. Simmons
...not necessarily render the confrontation impermissibly suggestive, e. g., State v. White, 549 S.W.2d 914 (Mo.App.1977); State v. French, 528 S.W.2d 170 (Mo.App.1975). Appellant also argues that the prosecutrix's agitated state of mind made the showup unduly suggestive. In the absence of any......
-
State v. White, 36966
...identification by one who has seen the alleged offender earlier. State v. Barnes, 537 S.W.2d 576, 578 (Mo.App.1976); State v. French, 528 S.W.2d 170, 172 (Mo.App.1975). 4 This same principle is equally applicable when the victim goes to the scene of the arrest rather than the scene of the o......