State v. Glass, No. 48282
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | CRIST; DOWD, P.J., and SNYDER |
| Citation | 703 S.W.2d 81 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Raymond GLASS, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 48282 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1985 |
Page 81
v.
Raymond GLASS, Appellant.
Eastern District,
Division Two.
Page 82
Allen I. Harris, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Victorine R. Mahon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
CRIST, Judge.
Defendant appeals his jury conviction for burglary in the second degree and stealing, for which he was sentenced, by the court as a prior and persistent offender, to consecutive terms of eight years' imprisonment for the burglary conviction and two years imprisonment for the stealing conviction. We affirm.
On the afternoon of November 6, 1982, Mr. and Mrs. Tyler, the victims, residents of California travelling through St. Louis on vacation, were visiting the Planetarium. While inside the planetarium, Mr. Tyler noticed someone was inside their mobile home. Mrs. Tyler went to get help as Mr. Tyler ran to the mobile home. He saw a man exit with an armful of "stuff" which he threw into the open trunk of a waiting car, which he then entered and started. Mr. Tyler then entered the car from the passenger side and turned off the ignition. The man then got out and ran around the car with Mr. Tyler pursuing, but the man was too quick, and was able to get back inside the car, and lock Mr. Tyler out.
Mrs. Tyler, by then, had exited the Planetarium, after seeking help, and took some pictures before the man drove off. These pictures showed the car, which was determined to have been leased to a woman living at the same address as defendant. Also, one of the pictures showed the perpetrator, who was recognized by a detective as defendant.
About two months later, those two pictures were mailed to victims so they could identify, for the trial, the pictures as those they took. At about the same time, a picture of the line-up was sent to the victims, who identified defendant, one of the four people in the line-up, as the perpetrator. It is not clear whether the pictures taken by the victims were sent with the picture of the line-up or whether they were sent separately. The police report reflects both the pictures taken by victim and the line-up pictures were sent, but is silent as to whether they were sent together or separately. The victims denied seeing the photographs when they were examining the line-up photograph.
Defendant, in his first two points on appeal, attacks the victim's identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. He claims the identification of defendant at trial was inherently unreliable, and therefore should have been suppressed, or the court should have given the jury two instructions concerning the dangers of eyewitness testimony. The identification is claimed to be unreliable due to the short length of time and the emotional circumstances involved in the incident, because the victims' description of defendant was extremely general, and the lapse of time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gilmore, No. WD
...adequately present defendant's theory of innocence. See State v. Higgins, 592 S.W.2d 151, 161 n. 14 (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Glass, 703 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Price, 689 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Moton, 671 S.W.2d 347 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Rider, 664 S.W.2......
-
State v. Hornbuckle, No. 70724
...the witness after the defendant had been publicly reported as a suspect. State v. Robinson, 591 S.W.2d at 20. (See also, State v. Glass, 703 S.W.2d 81, 82 (Mo.App.1985) where, at the time of the identification, the victims may have had available for reference photographs of the defendant th......
-
State v. Glover, No. WD
...at 161 (Mo. banc.1979); Briscoe, 913 S.W.2d at 816 (Mo.App.1995); State v. Thomure, 706 S.W.2d 521, 523-24 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Glass, 703 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Smith, 632 S.W.2d 36, 40 Moreover, as Briscoe notes, the Notes On Use to MAI-CR3d 302.01 expressly state that "......
-
State v. Gilmore, No. WD
...adequately present defendant's theory of innocence. See State v. Higgins, 592 S.W.2d 151, 161 n. 14 (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Glass, 703 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Price, 689 S.W.2d 380, 382-83 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Moton, 671 S.W.2d 347 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Rider, 664 S.W.2......
-
State v. Hornbuckle, No. 70724
...the witness after the defendant had been publicly reported as a suspect. State v. Robinson, 591 S.W.2d at 20. (See also, State v. Glass, 703 S.W.2d 81, 82 (Mo.App.1985) where, at the time of the identification, the victims may have had available for reference photographs of the defendant th......
-
State v. Glover, No. WD
...at 161 (Mo. banc.1979); Briscoe, 913 S.W.2d at 816 (Mo.App.1995); State v. Thomure, 706 S.W.2d 521, 523-24 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Glass, 703 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Smith, 632 S.W.2d 36, 40 Moreover, as Briscoe notes, the Notes On Use to MAI-CR3d 302.01 expressly state that "......