State v. Greenlaw, 37299
| Decision Date | 26 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 37299,37299 |
| Citation | 543 S.W.2d 523 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Louis GREENLAW, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division Two |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas R. Motley, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals from a jury conviction for Robbery First Degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, and a sentence of twenty-five (25) years imprisonment. We affirm.
Prior to trial, defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was overruled.
The state's principal witness, Ms. Parthenia Roundtree stated that she was a manager at a Velvet Freeze Store and that she and a co-worker were in the store at the time of the robbery. At about 3:30 P.M., a man entered the store and ordered a sandwich from Ms. Roundtree. Her co-worker finished the sale; however, the man remained at the counter. Ms. Roundtree asked if he wanted anything else. The man replied yes, then pulled a gun, and jumped over the counter. He ordered her to open the cash register and thereafter took the money contained therein. Afterwards he went through the pockets of both Ms. Roundtree and her co-worker. At this point a customer came into the store, and the robber jumped back over the counter and fled. Ms. Roundtree watched the direction he took while her co-worker phoned the police. Within a few minutes the police arrived and Ms. Roundtree gave a description of the robber. Soon afterward, the police returned with the defendant whom Ms. Roundtree identified as the person who had robbed her. About an hour later Ms. Roundtree again identified the defendant in a lineup consisting of from one to three individuals.
Ms. Roundtree further testified that the robber wore sunglasses when he came in, but later took them off. The entire event lasted about fifteen or twenty minutes.
On the day of the trial the prosecutor showed Ms. Roundtree a photograph of the defendant and asked her if they had the right man. She replied that they did.
During the trial Ms. Roundtree testified, without objection, that the defendant was indeed the individual who had robbed her. Defense counsel again challenged the validity of Ms. Roundtree's identification in his motion for a new trial.
Defendant argues that the identification procedure denied him constitutional due process because: (1) the confrontation between Ms. Roundtree and himself at the store immediately after his arrest; and (2) Ms. Roundtree's viewing of his photograph on the day of the trial--both were 'suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. . . .'
The state argues that (1) 'Miss Roundtree's identification was based on an independent source; and (2) the appellant's contentions have not been properly preserved for review.'
Defendant made a pretrial motion to suppress the identification testimony and made a motion for a new trial on the same grounds, yet at the time of the introduction of Ms. Roundtree's identification testimony no objection was made. This court recently reiterated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. White, 36966
...ground must be included in the motion for new trial in order to preserve the issue for purposes of appellate review. State v. Greenlaw, 543 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Johnson, 536 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Mo.App.1976). However, despite this omission, we conclude that the pre-trial iden......
-
State v. Walker, 52727
...for a new trial are made, nothing is preserved for review in the absence of a timely objection during the trial." State v. Greenlaw, 543 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Mo.App.E.D.1976). His point, therefore, has not been preserved for review and we review it only for plain error. State v. Grounds, 676 S.......
- M.P. v. S.P., 56660