State v. Gasaway

Decision Date16 September 1986
Docket NumberNo. WD,WD
Citation720 S.W.2d 3
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Leonard GASAWAY, Appellant. 37348.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Sean O'Brien, Public Defender, Anne E. Hall, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth A. Levin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., BERREY, J., and ROPER, Special Judge.

ELLEN S. ROPER, Special Judge.

DefendantLeonard Gasaway was convicted of an attempt to commit burglary in the second degree, §§ 564.011,569.170, RSMo 1978, and was sentenced as a prior offender to three years' imprisonment, § 558.016, RSMoSupp.1981.

Defendant charges the trial court with error in admitting State's Exhibits 12, 13, and 14 and for denying defendant's request for a mistrial or in the alternative a continuance when witness Clarence Hooker did not appear although subpoenaed.

The defendant having not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, a brief recitation of the facts will suffice.

At 8:00 p.m. on September 5, 1984, Kansas City Police Officer, Jerry Gallagher, on routine patrol checked the locks at Mr. B's Liquor Store located at 3901 Prospect in Jackson County.The locks were found to be intact and were hanging from the lock hasp.Gallagher returned at 10:48 p.m. and observed appellant standing by the door of Mr. B's holding a hammer (Exhibit 12).Gallagher took the hammer from defendant and noticed that the locks had been cut from the front door and there were two padlocks and a partially cut lock hasp (Exhibit 13) lying on the ground.Officer Gallagher recovered a pair of bolt cutters (Exhibit 14) from defendant's car.Crime investigator Bill Fortner responded to the scene and took custody of the hammer, lock hasp, and bolt cutters and placed them in a brown evidence bag with his name and complaint number on the bag.

Ralph Baney, Kansas City Firearms and Toolmark Examiner, received the three items in the sealed evidence bag from Fortner and after initialling the bag and items Baney tested the bolt cutter and hasp to determine whether the bolt cutters were used to cut the hasp.Baney then resealed the bag and kept the bag in his custody.At trial Officer Gallagher positively identified the hammer, hasp, and bolt cutters as those he observed on the night of September 5, 1984, at Mr. B's Liquor.

I.

Defendant charges the trial court with error in admitting Exhibits 12, 13, and 14 because crime investigator, Bill Fortner, did not appear at trial and testify regarding the chain of custody with respect to these exhibits.Where an exhibit is positively identified by a witness, proof of chain of custody is unnecessary.State v. Malone, 694 S.W.2d 723, 727(Mo. banc 1985).Officer Gallagher positively identified the hammer, hasp, and bolt cutter as those recovered from the scene of the crime and he testified that they were in substantially the same condition at trial as they were on the night they were recovered.The trial court did not err in admitting Exhibits 12, 13, and 14.

II.

The defendant alleges error in the failure of the trial court to grant his request for a mistrial or in the alternative for continuance.Defense witness Clarence Hooker was served with a subpoena on the first day of trial requiring his presence at 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon of the second day of trial.When witness Hooker failed to appear on the second day of trial, at the defendant's request, the trial court issued a writ of...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
  • Lee v. Kemna
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 13, 2000
    ...by Rule 24.09 is sufficient ground to affirm the trial court's action.") (quoting Diamond, 647 S.W.2d at 808); State v. Gasaway, 720 S.W.2d 3, 5-6 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986) ("Where a defendant fails to comply with Rule 24.10, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance.......
  • State v. West
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 1989
    ...592 S.W.2d 796, 808 (Mo. banc 1980). The trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a mistrial. State v. Gasaway, 720 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Mo.App.1986). The trial court's decision whether to grant a mistrial should be overruled only if clear evidence exists that the trial court a......
2 books & journal articles
  • §901 Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
    • United States
    • Evidence Restated Deskbook Chapter 9 Authentication and Identification
    • Invalid date
    ...that the bullet offered was in substantially the same condition as when it was removed from the victim's brain); State v. Gasaway, 720 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Mo. App. W.D. 1986) (chain of custody is unnecessary when exhibits were identified as being recovered from the scene of the crime and were in s......
  • Section 23.34 Instruments and Devices Used in Commission of Crime
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Criminal Practice Deskbook Chapter 23 Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...evidence is irrelevant when an exhibit is positively identified. State v. Ingram, 607 S.W.2d 438, 441 (Mo. 1980); State v. Gasaway, 720 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Mo. App. W.D. 1986). Weapons of the defendant unrelated to the offense are not admissible. State v. Perry, 689 S.W.2d 123, 125 (Mo. App. W.D. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT