State v. Grissom, 56954
| Decision Date | 06 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 56954,56954 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Billy J. GRISSOM, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stuart A. Cofman, Russell Anthony Willis II, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Andrea K. Spillars, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Appellant, Billy Grissom, appeals his jury conviction in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County for the offenses of possession of marijuana, RSMo § 195.020 (1986) and unlawful use of a weapon, RSMo § 571.030.1(1) (1986). The jury sentenced appellant to sixty days imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine for the possession charge and one-hundred twenty days in prison and a $3,000.00 fine for the unlawful use of a weapon charge. The trial court entered the jury's sentences but suspended execution of the jail sentence on the weapons charge and placed the appellant on five years of probation. We affirm.
The evidence adduced below reveals that on February 29, 1988, appellant met with undercover Police Officer Jack House to discuss the possible future purchase of some marijuana. A confidential informant had arranged the meeting between the appellant and Officer House. At the meeting, appellant informed Officer House that he and a partner, later identified as Jeffrey Nickells, wished to purchase five pounds of marijuana. The parties agreed to a price of $950.00 per pound and appellant agreed to notify Officer House the next day whether he had sufficient funds for the purchase. The following day, Officer House received a telephone call from appellant who informed him "that they had their money" and were "set to go." Officer House then arranged for them to meet in a hotel room because Nickells was "leery about doing the deal on a parking lot." Prior to appellant's arrival, police installed two electronic devices in the hotel room to record the transaction.
At approximately 10:00 p.m., the appellant and Nickells arrived at the hotel room. The appellant engaged in conversation with Officer House while another undercover officer, Detective Fagan, and Nickells weighed the marijuana and discussed the details of the transaction. When the transaction was completed, the appellant and Nickells left the hotel room and were subsequently arrested. A small .22 caliber pistol was discovered on the appellant by the arresting officers.
A trial was held on May 11, 1989, and the jury returned a guilty verdict the next day. This appeal followed.
Appellant's initial contention is that the trial court erred in admitting that portion of the taped conversation of the parties wherein Nickells referred to a future purchase and sale of cocaine. This evidence was presented both by way of the tape of the transaction, which the appellant has failed to provide to this court, and by way of a transcript of the tape, prepared by Officer House and provided to the jury to aid its understanding of what was said on the tape.
We first note that, contrary to appellant's claims, it was the appellant, not Nickells, that initially made inquiries regarding cocaine sale to the officers. In addition, the statements, even if made by Nickells, would be evidence of a continuing conspiracy to possess controlled substances and, as such, would be admissible as statements of a co-conspirator. See State v. Daugherty, 631 S.W.2d 637, 643 (Mo.1982). Point denied.
Appellant next claims that the court erred in permitting the jury to read the transcript of the tape recording. We note that transcripts may be used if portions of a tape are inaudible or if there is a need to identify the speakers. State v. Engleman, 653 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.1983). In the present case, we have not been provided with a copy of the tape, although appellant does not dispute that portions of it are inaudible. How the appellant expects this court to determine the propriety of the trial court's action is indeed a good question. This is particularly true with regard to his allegation that the transcript is not truly accurate. We are not omniscient and, lacking a tape to compare with the transcript, it is impossible for us to consider these points.
Appellant next claims that the trial court erred in allowing the State to admit weapons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State
...argument without violating the general rule that there should be no reference to an accused's post-arrest silence); State v. Grissom, 804 S.W.2d 777, 779-80 (Mo.App.1990) (after the defendant testified about uncharged crimes in his direct examination, the trial court did not err in permitti......
-
State v. Coutee
...made during closing argument are unnecessary and can rise to prejudicial error if sufficient to inflame the jury." State v. Grissom, 804 S.W.2d 777, 780 (Mo.App.1990). However, "[w]here the characterization of the defendant is based upon the evidence received at trial, such prejudice does n......
-
State v. Fleischer, 18386
...The comments about later obtaining a Corvette for Rogers could be viewed as evidence of a continuing conspiracy. See State v. Grissom, 804 S.W.2d 777, 779 (Mo.App.1990). Boswell's statements about not talking to his driver could be construed as an attempt to conceal the crime or defeat pros......
-
State v. Warrington, 18674
...when the characterization of a defendant is based upon evidence received at trial, such prejudice does not result. State v. Grissom, 804 S.W.2d 777, 780 (Mo.App.1990) (No prejudice in prosecutor's argument that Grissom, charged with possession of marijuana, was "a dealer" because there was ......