State v. Goshon, KCD

Decision Date04 February 1974
Docket NumberNo. KCD,KCD
CitationState v. Goshon, 506 S.W.2d 99 (Mo. App. 1974)
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lawrence C. GOSHON, Appellant. 26585.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Willard B. Bunch, Public Defender, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Kansas City, for appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DIXON, C.J., and SHANGLER and WASSERSTROM, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from a conviction for armed robbery. Defendant was convicted upon a jury verdict and sentenced to a term of five years in the Department of Corrections. Two points of error are presented on appeal. Defendant contends the court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the line-up in which he was identified, because it was unduly suggestive, and secondly, that '(t)he court erred in allowing the victim, Mr. Pete Morton, to testify concerning any basis of identification which was not independent of the taint raised by the prejudicial line-up proceeding.'

The prosecution of the defendant arose from a robbery on September 2, 1972, at the Skaggs drugstore at 3200 Troost, in Kansas City. At 7:20 a.m., Mr. Pete C. Morton, the manager of the store, arrived to prepare for the business day. As Mr. Morton entered the store, an armed man, later identified as the defendant, stepped from hiding, within the store, and confronted him. The defendant took the derringer that Mr. Morton was carrying, and ordered him to the rear of the store. Mr. Morton's wallet containing $15.00, his watch, and his ring were taken and he was bound hand and foot with hosiery.

When Mr. Morton warned defendant that employees would soon begin arriving for work, defendant loosened the bonds and directed Mr. Morton to make a sign to be placed on the door. The parties proceeded to another portion of the store where Mr. Morton wrote a notice to employees that the store would not open until 12:00 noon. After placing the sign on the door, Mr. Morton was again ordered to the rear of the store. Proceeding to the rear, Mr. Morton inquired whether he had gone far enough. Receiving no answer, and the defendant not being in sight, Mr. Morton ran from the store and called the police.

Two days later Mr. Morton was called to view a line-up at police headquarters. The defendant and two other men were in the 'show-up.' The defendant was identified by Mr. Morton as the man who had robbed him. On September 22, 1972, information was filed and defendant arraigned on the charge of armed robbery.

Appellant argues that two factors rendered the line-up suggestive and required suppression of the line-up identification. At the time of the line-up, appellant contends he was under the influence of marijuana and the testimony of Morton...

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

Get Started for Free

Start Your 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 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 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 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 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 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
5 cases
  • State v. Davis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 9, 1975
    ...The presence of an independent source will serve to remove any taint that might result from a suggestive confrontation, State v. Goshon, 506 S.W.2d 99 (Mo.App.1974) and State v. Davis, 507 S.W.2d 32, 35 (Mo.App.1974). Isolation of an independent source requires consideration of numerous fac......
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 4, 1975
    ...an independent basis for the admission of the in-court identification. State v. Ramsey, 477 S.W.2d 88, 90(2, 3) (Mo.1972); State v. Goshon, 506 S.W.2d 99 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Ross, 502 S.W.2d 241, 246(2) (Mo.1973). Further, defendant did not object to Stanley's in-court identification an......
  • State v. Mitchell, 38414
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 25, 1977
    ...478 S.W.2d 358 (Mo.1972); State v. Brownridge, 459 S.W.2d 317 (Mo.1970); State v. Green, 515 S.W.2d 197 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Goshon, 506 S.W.2d 99 (Mo.App.1974). We must disagree with defendant's suggestion that the victim and the eyewitness were unable to closely observe the defendant i......
  • State v. Barnes
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 1976
    ...support to the admissibility of the subsequent in-court identification. We rule this first point against defendant. State v. Goshon, 506 S.W.2d 99 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Britt, 504 S.W.2d 38(3) Defendant's second allegation of error concerns the gun butt partially protruding from a paper s......
  • Get Started for Free