State v. French, 56202
| Decision Date | 22 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56202,No. 1,56202,1 |
| Citation | 476 S.W.2d 509 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Paul FRENCH, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Bell Fullwood, Wilson & Harris, by James A. Bell, Allen I. Harris, St. Louis, for appellant.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Appeal from judgment and sentence of five years' imprisonment upon jury verdict finding James Paul French guilty of robbery in the first degree with a deadly weapon.
At around 4:20 P.M., November 24, 1969, two men entered Ray Swiggart's coin shop at 3469 Hampton Avenue in St. Louis. Another customer was in the store and the two men left, but returned after the customer left. The two men asked Swiggart for a coin book which he got and handed to the man later identified as appellant French. As Swiggart did so, the second man drew a gun and ordered Swiggart to go to the bathroom. Swiggart backed down a hallway, observing the intruders as he did so, and entered the bathroom and sat on the commode. While the other man held the gun on Swiggart, French returned to the store behind the counter.
Swiggart slammed the bathroom door shut, broke a window and climbed outside. Police were called to the scene. Swiggart found that approximately $200 in currency and coins were missing from the store. He gave the police a description of the robbers, describing French as wearing 'flashy' clothes, about 40 years of age, and shorter and older than the other robber.
Between 4:30 and 5:00 P.M. on November 24, 1969, Dale Clouse, who resided at 6034 Fyler, four or five blocks from the coin shop, noticed three men in the alley behind his house. Clouse's suspicious were aroused and he watched two of the men go through a gangway between his house and the adjoining house to the street. He went to the front of his house where he saw, through a window, the two men from a distance of about five feet. They looked up and down the street and then went back to the alley. Clouse continued to watch them and saw one of the men place an object under a truck parked in the drive next door. The two waited a short time for the third and then all three left. Clouse went outside to the truck and saw a gun underneath the left rear wheel of the truck. The police were called to the scene and they photographed the gun under the truck and then took possession of it. Swiggart, at the trial, identified the pistol as looking the same as the one used in the robbery.
Within a few days after the holdup, police officers showed some twelve photographs to Swiggart and Clouse, separately. Swiggart picked out French's photograph as one of the robbers. Clouse picked out French's photograph as one of the men he saw in the circumstances stated above.
French was arrested in June and appeared in a three-man lineup at police headquarters on June 18, 1970. Swiggart and Clouse identified French at the lineup. They identified French at his trial and testified to their earlier photograph and lineup identification.
The first point on the appeal concerns the identification evidence. A motion was filed by defendant to suppress any identification testimony by Swiggart and Clouse on the grounds that it was the product of a pretrial confrontation which was unnecessarily suggestive. A hearing on the motion was held and at its conclusion the motion was enlarged to include objection to testimony regarding the lineup identification on the grounds that French was not represented by an attorney at that time. The trial court concluded that French had waived his right to an attorney at the lineup and that neither the lineup nor the photographic identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive.
On this appeal, the appellant attacks the trial court's finding, but offers little of substance for its rejection. He says that there was Other than stating that there was 'great diversity of testimony as to the description of the other parties in the lineup,' appellant does not enlighten us as to the 'highly suggestive circumstances' of the lineup. Swiggart did not recall the other two persons in the lineup. Clouse said that the three were similar in physical characteristics. The police officer who conducted the lineup testified that the three resembled each other, physically and age-wise, with one of the three slightly smaller than the others. Both Swiggart and Clouse testified that no suggestions were made to them about the defendant at either the photographic or lineup identification. French did testify that the other two men in the lineup differed greatly in appearance. He said that he was 40 years of age, 5 11 tall, weighing 186 pounds, and had a Van Dyke beard at the lineup. He said one of the other two was 6 6 , weighing 160 pounds, and the other 5 , weighing 150; neither had a beard.
The trial court, upon its hearing, resolved the conflict in evidence against appellant on the alleged suggestiveness of the lineup. We find no error in that ruling on the conflicting testimony. State v. Cannon, Mo.Sup., 465 S.W.2d 584, 586(1).
Furthermore, both Swiggart and Clouse testified to an independent source of identification in the observation of French at the robbery, in Swiggart's case, and at his residence, in Clouse's case. Both testified to opportunity to observe French. Swiggart provided the police with a description of French, consistent with his actual appearance.
The evidence of the independent sources of identification by Swiggart and Clouse, part from the photographic and lineup procedures, nullifies any objection to their in-court identification based upon the impropriety of the pre-trial identification. State v. Balle, Mo.Sup., 442 S.W.2d 35, 39(1--3), (4); State v. Cannon, supra.
The independent source of the witness's in-trial identifications would also obviate objection to such identifications based upon the lack of counsel at the lineup. However, the production by the state at the trial of evidence of the lineup identification calls into play the per se rule announced in Gilbert v. California, 388...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lacy
...Company v. Woods, 663 S.W.2d at 399; citing Whitney v. Central Paper Stock Company, 446 S.W.2d at 419; also citing State v. French, 476 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Mo.1972) (allowing a description of clothes as "flashy"); See also Brown v. Kroger Company, 358 S.W.2d 429 (Mo.App.1962) (allowing testimo......
-
United Missouri Bank v. City of Grandview
...Id. In other words, if an extensive or involved description is warranted, a shorthand description is allowed. See State v. French, 476 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Mo.1972) (holding that the witness' conclusion that the defendant's dress was "flashy" fell within this rule); Beuttenmuller v. Vess Bottli......
-
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Woods
...requires acceptance of the testimony even though it may be, in a sense, the conclusion of the witness. Id. See also State v. French, 476 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Mo.1972) (describing clothes as "flashy" held proper). The description of furniture as "nice" is similar to that allowed in those cases a......
-
State v. McDowell
...made after the jury has been sworn is untimely and the denial of such an application is not an abuse of discretion. State v. French, 476 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Mo.1972). In the case at bar, the defendant's attorney did not inform the court of his difficulty in locating and serving a subpoena on t......
-
§701 Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
...damage to furniture following a fire, testimony of a witness that the furniture was "real nice" was properly admitted) - State v. French, 476 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Mo. 1972) (describing clothes as "flashy" held proper) - Whitney v. Cent. Stock Co., 446 S.W.2d 415, 419 (Mo. App. E.D. 1969) (testi......