State v. Goode
Decision Date | 16 December 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 51313,51313 |
Citation | 721 S.W.2d 766 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stephen Dale GOODE, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Mary Dames Fox, Asst. Public Defender, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth A. Levin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Stephen Dale Goode was convicted by a jury of robbery in the second degree; § 569.030 RSMo 1978. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict and sentenced appellant as a persistent offender to a term of thirty years imprisonment. He appealed.
At trial appellant sought removal of venireperson Bolasina for cause on the grounds of her alleged stated inability to give appellant a fair trial if she did not hear him testify. He also raised this issue in his motion for new trial. On appeal, however, appellant argues venireperson Bolasina's alleged inability to give appellant a fair trial because she would consider the appellant's prior convictions to determine his guilt or innocence, rather than to determine his credibility.
We note that appellant's basis for error in his motion for new trial is not the same ground argued here on appeal, and, therefore, the question has not been preserved for appellate review. Rule 29.11(d). Hence, the issue is reviewable only for plain error. Rule 29.12(b). State v. Harris, 620 S.W.2d 349, 354 (Mo. banc 1981). An appellate court will reverse under the plain error rule only if appellant makes a sound, substantial manifestation and a strong, clear showing that injustice or a miscarriage of justice will result from the alleged error. State v. Cannady, 660 S.W.2d 33, 37 (Mo.App.1983). We find no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in this case.
The following excerpts from the voir dire examination provide the basis for appellant's claim:
The transcript further reveals that appellant exercised his peremptory challenge to remove Ms. Bolasina from the jury panel.
Although venireperson Bolasina initially indicated that she would have difficulty considering appellant's prior convictions, she did state that she could evaluate his testimony and consider his previous convictions simply as to his credibility. Venireperson Bolasina never indicated that she would automatically find appellant guilty. It is not clear whether venireperson Bolasina would disregard a court which instructs her that "you must not consider such previous convictions as any evidence that the defendant is guilty of any offense for which he is now on trial." (jury instruction no. 5).
In State v. Smith, 649 S.W.2d 417, 422 [6, 7] (Mo. banc 1983), the Supreme Court of Missouri stated the criteria used to determine whether a challenge for cause should be sustained.
A clear line cannot be drawn for all cases as to when a challenge for cause should be sustained; there will be instances in which an appellate court might have done differently but cannot say there was an abuse of discretion; each case must be judged on its particular facts; a determination by the trial judge of the qualifications of a prospective juror necessarily involves a judgment based on observation of his demeanor and, considering that observation, an evaluation and interpretation of the answers as they relate to whether the venireman would be fair and impartial if chosen as a juror. State v. Cuckovich, 485 S.W.2d 16, 22-23 (Mo. banc 1972). Because the trial judge is better positioned to make that determination than are we from the cold record, doubts as to the trial court's findings will be resolved in its favor. State v. Engleman, 634 S.W.2d 466, 472 (Mo. banc 1982).
State v. Smith, 649 S.W.2d 417, 422[6, 7] (Mo. banc 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 908, 104 S.Ct. 262, 78 L.Ed.2d 246 (1983). In State v. Smith, supra, the Supreme Court of Missouri applied the plain error rule, as the appellant had failed to preserve his claim of error at trial. Appellant sought removal of venireperson Kraft for cause, because Kraft had a daughter who was raped at the same age at which the victim was murdered. Venireperson Kraft indicated he needed to think about whether the past experience involving his daughter would affect his ability to be fair and impartial. After he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jones
...to satisfy his burden of proving that "prejudicial error resulted" and said error "amounted to manifest injustice." State v. Goode, 721 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986).Moreover, Defendant elected not to contest the sufficiency of the evidence as to his conviction, thereby encumbering h......
-
State v. Franklin
...from the grounds argued here and therefore the question has not been preserved for appellate review. Rule 29.11(d). State v. Goode, 721 S.W.2d 766 (Mo.App.1986). Point denied. Defendant's final point argues the alleged unfairness of the defendant being deprived of the opportunity of testify......
-
State v. Meyers, WD
...by overwhelming evidence, no injustice or miscarriage of justice results from a refusal to invoke the plain error rule. State v. Goode, 721 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Mo.App.1986). In the case at bar appellant raises the issue of the constitutionality of Section 492.304, RSMo 1986, for the first time......
-
State v. Sims, 54538
...evidence, no injustice or miscarriage of justice will result from a refusal to invoke the plain error rule. State v. Goode, 721 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Mo.App.1986). We find overwhelming evidence established appellant's guilt. Appellant signed a written confession in which he described his involve......