State v. Green, 56489
| Decision Date | 22 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 56489,56489,1 |
| Citation | 476 S.W.2d 567 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Worth GREEN, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles B. Blackmar, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
Vernie R. Crandall, Frieze & Crandall, Carthage, for appellant.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Worth Green was convicted by a jury of burglary, second degree, and stealing. Upon the jury's failure to agree on punishment, the court assessed punishment at five years' imprisonment for burglary and two years' imprisonment for stealing, the terms to run consecutively. Sentence and judgment were rendered accordingly. Criminal Rule 27.03, V.A.M.R.; §§ 560.070, 560.095, 560.110, V.A.M.S.
The testimony of Richard Bebee shows that in the early morning, October 12, 1969, he, defendant Worth Green, Clarence McGinnis, and Roy Bybee forcibly broke into the Bill Thomas TV Center in Joplin, Jasper County, Missouri, and stole 12 television sets which they sold with the proceeds of sale divided among them.
Appellant does not question the sufficiency of evidence to sustain his conviction but contends, Point I, that the court erred in overruling his motions to produce 'because this action * * * denied * * * the opportunity to fully cross-examine and particularly to test the memory and recollection of the prosecuting witness.'
Prior to trial defendant filed a 'Motion for Production of Admissions of Richard Bebee,' seeking to require the prosecuting attorney to produce for inspection and copying a signed statement of 'prosecuting witness' Richard Bebee, on grounds of difference between testimony of the owner of the stolen property and Bebee, and for purposes of cross-examination.
Apparently, the motion was accompanied by a subpoena duces tecum issued for production of the Bebee statement, because the State moved to quash the subpoena, traversing the grounds for production of the statement asserted in defendant's motion.
The court overruled the Motion to Produce as directed at the prosecuting attorney and quashed the subpoena duces tecum.
Again, prior to trial, defendant filed 'Motion for Production of Admissions of Richard Bebee,' this time seeking to require the Joplin chief of police to produce the statement of Richard Bebee, asserting the same grounds.
This motion was overruled when the case came on for trial. Irrespective of the court's rulings on these motions, however, the prosecuting attorney, prior to opening statements, gave counsel for defendant 'that portion of the statement that Richard Bebee gave me concerning this particular offense and Worth Green and the Bill Thomas TV Store.'
Appellant's Point III is akin to Point I in that he contends the court erred 'in not admitting defendant-appellant's Exhibit #3 for impeachment purposes because Exhibit $3 contradicted the prosecuting witness' statement on cross-examination on several important factual issues.'
In addition to these proceedings, appellant also presents on these points certain additional testimony of Richard Bebee. In response to cross-examination questions, Richard Bebee stated that he had been in approximately 100 burglaries in Jasper County, and that in his statement to the prosecuting attorney he had given name, place, and parties in all of them; that with respect to the Thomas burglary he stated 12 television sets were taken, whereas Mr. Thomas testified 11 were missing from inventory; that with respect to the car used in the Thomas burglary, he stated on direct examination that it was a 1964 Ford convertible, on cross-examination a 1967 Ford white convertible with black top, and, in his statement, a 1956 Ford convertible owned by Worth's girl friend, Nancy something; that he had told the jury all about the Thomas burglary. Defense counsel then had the statement given him at the outset of trial by the prosecuting attorney marked Exhibit 3 and offered it in evidence for impeachment on the issue of the car used in the Thomas burglary. The witness was cross-examined further:
'What kind of car was it you say was being used that night, Richard? A. A '67 Ford white convertible with black top. Q. Now I am going to ask you if you didn't tell the prosecuting attorney of this county in the statement you referred to as having signed, that the car that was used that night was a '56 Ford convertible? . a....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garrette
...thereafter introduced evidence in his own behalf, thereby waiving any error with respect to the denial of that motion. State v. Green, 476 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Mo.1972); State v. Campbell, 655 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Mo.App.1983).18 Defendant insists in his eighth assignment of error that he was prejudi......
-
State v. Williams, 36168
...defendant then presented evidence on his own behalf and therefore waived error with respect to the overruling of the motion. State v. Green, 476 S.W.2d 567 (Mo.1972); State v. Lewis, 526 S.W.2d 49 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Winters, 525 S.W.2d 417 The defendant also contends that prosecutorial......
-
State v. Stolzman, 16777
...thereafter presented evidence in his own behalf, he waived any claim of error regarding the denial of the motion, State v. Green, 476 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Mo.1972), hence we need consider only whether defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence should have been......
-
State v. W.---- F. W.----
...thereupon presented evidence in his own behalf, thereby waiving any error with respect to the denial of the motion. State v. Green, 476 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Mo.1972); State v. Campbell, 655 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Mo.App.1983). Consequently, our consideration of defendant's point IV will be based on all......