State v. Gordon, KCD
| Decision Date | 01 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas B. GORDON, Appellant. 28173. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Larson, Public Defender, Lee M. Nation, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., William F. Arnet, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before TURNAGE, P.J., and WELBORN and HIGGINS, Special Judges.
Thomas B. Gordon was convicted of stealing a leather coat from Macy's with a value of over $50.00. The court assessed punishment at five years imprisonment absent a sentence by the jury.
On this appeal Gordon principally urges reversal of his conviction on the grounds of an abuse of discretion in the failure of the court to excuse a venireman for cause. Reversed and remanded.
During the voir dire the following occurred:
MR. BLOEMKER (Defense Counsel): Are any of you right now, or have you in the past, been a member of any law enforcement agency, either civilian or military, the MPs, the Shore Patrol, Air Police, anything of that sort? Yes, sir.
The three of you who answered yes to that question, let me pose one question specifically to just you. Do any of you think that your experience as a police officer, or military police officer or what not, could in any way affect the judgment that you might make in this case?
VENIREMAN McCLAIN: No.
MR. HALL (Assistant Prosecuting Attorney): Yes.
After further questions to the panel, counsel for both the State and Gordon announced they had no further voir dire examination. Thereupon the following occurred:
The rules for determining the question Gordon raises are well defined and stated in State v. Lovell, 506 S.W.2d 441, 443, 444 (Mo. banc 1974). These include the fact a defendant is entitled to a full panel of qualified jurors before he makes peremptory challenges and the court's discretion in ruling upon challenges for cause will not be disturbed unless it is so manifestly against the record as to show an abuse of discretion. Further, the decision of the court 'should rest upon the facts stated by the juror with reference to his state of mind and should not be allowed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Salazar
...and ... she expected criticism from her husband if she voted innocence where a police officer testified”); and State v. Gordon, 543 S.W.2d 553, 555 (Mo.App.K.C.D.1976) (entire examination of panel member “reveals a clearly expressed doubt that he could accord [the defendant] a fair and impa......
-
State v. Salazar
...and . . . she expected criticism from her husband if she voted innocence where a police officer testified"); and State v. Gordon, 543 S.W.2d 553, 555 (Mo. App. K.C.D. 1976) (entire examination of panel member "reveals a clearly expressed doubt that he could accord [the defendant] a fair and......
-
State v. Ealy
...cases. Errors in the exclusion of potential jurors should always be made on the side of caution. See also State v. Gordon, 543 S.W.2d 553, No. 28173 (Mo.App. KCD 1976). The court in the instant case had nine other jurors to whom no objection appears to have arisen. If the salutary practice ......
-
State v. Thrift
...was submitted. 1 State v. Land, 478 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Mo.1972); State v. Hill, 556 S.W.2d 227, 229(1) (Mo.App.1977); State v. Gordon, 543 S.W.2d 553, 555(1) (Mo.App.1976).2 State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 649(1) (Mo.Banc 1977); State v. Cuckovich, 485 S.W.2d 16, 22(11) (Mo.banc 1972); Sta......