State v. Gooch, 13068
| Decision Date | 06 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 13068,13068 |
| Citation | 659 S.W.2d 342 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert Lee GOOCH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Janet E. Papageorge, Theodore A. Bruce, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Carr L. Woods, Garrett & Woods, Monett, for defendant-appellant.
Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.
The only testimony linking appellant to the crime was the identification of him by the complaining witness. She testified that at approximately 5:30 p.m. on May 17, 1977, she left a Wal-Mart Store at 15th and Range Line in Joplin. She was starting to get in her car in the parking lot when appellant came up behind her and threatened her with a revolver. He forced her into her car and then got in and drove off with the gun on his lap. He drove to a wooded area where the rape occurred. He then drove them back to the Wal-Mart Store, said he was going to get out and told her not to look where he went and to leave. After he got out of the car she drove a few blocks to a phone and called the police. An examination at a hospital confirmed her assertions. Four days later at a grocery store next door to the Wal-Mart Store she saw a man who she "thought" was her assailant. She got the license number of his vehicle and gave it to the police. At a "line-up" she "realized that it couldn't possibly be him because he was too tall, and his teeth weren't quite right." No charges were filed against him.
The complaining witness saw appellant in May of 1982 at the Webb City Wal-Mart Store. She determined that he was the assailant and his name was obtained from one of the persons who worked at the "check-outs" there. It was given to the police and he was subsequently arrested.
Appellant testified that on May 17, 1977, from approximately 3:30 p.m. until 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. he was with his wife at a medical clinic. He said he remembers going there that day because his wife was pregnant and that was the first day he could hear the baby's heart beat. Upon leaving the clinic he said they went to the home of his mother-in-law and remained there until approximately 9:00 p.m. There were no other defense witnesses who testified regarding appellant's whereabouts on May 17, 1977.
Appellant asserts in one of his points that the trial court erred in not allowing his wife to testify as an alibi witness because she had not been disclosed to the state. She would have testified that appellant was with her at a medical clinic at the time the complaining witness stated that the offense occurred. An employee of the medical clinic at a hearing on an after-trial motion filed by appellant identified records of the clinic showing that appellant's wife was present there on May 17, 1977. The records did not disclose whether anyone was with appellant's wife. At that hearing appellant's wife testified that he was with her. Appellant contends that not allowing her to testify at trial resulted in fundamental unfairness and prejudice to him. He asserts that any possible prejudice to the state in granting his request could have been removed or ameliorated by other, less drastic measures, then available to the court.
Appellant was indicted on July 29, 1982, and tried on October 12, 1982. On the morning of trial just before it commenced, the public defender stated he wished to call appellant's wife as an alibi witness. He told the court that he had not disclosed this intention to the prosecutor prior to that day. The public defender said that he "personally" did not know until that day that he could establish where appellant was at the time of the offense. The public defender stated that due to lack of time and manpower his office had not been able "to do everything" regarding this case.
The state contends that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing appellant's wife to testify. It asserts that her testimony would have been cumulative and not allowing it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Norman Smith
... ... Gagnon (1982), 675 F ... 2d 913 (exclusion of defendant's own testimony), and the ... Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Gooch (1983), 659 ... S.W. 2d 342, and State v. Mansfield (1982), 637 S.W ... 2d 699. Contra are Rider v. Crouse (C.A. 10 ... 1966), 357 ... ...
-
State v. Wooten, 51934
...would be an abuse of discretion if it resulted in fundamental unfairness to defendant. Harris, 664 S.W.2d at 680-681; State v. Gooch, 659 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Mo.App.1983). In Gooch the court found the exclusion of corroborating alibi testimony to be an abuse of discretion where defendant testi......
-
State v. Williams, s. WD
...642 S.W.2d 941, 946 (Mo.App.1982). Mr. Williams relies upon State v. Mansfield, 637 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. banc 1982), and State v. Gooch, 659 S.W.2d 342 (Mo.App.1983), as support for his contention that the trial court erred in refusing to allow his father to testify. In both Mansfield and Gooch,......
-
State Of Mo. v. Hopper
...of trial and the defense's only "good cause" was "lack of time and man power" in the Public Defender's office. See State v. Gooch, 659 S.W.2d 342 (Mo. App. S.D.1983). In Gooch, also a rape case, the assistant public defender trying the case did not "personally" know that the defendant had a......