State v. Harrell, WD32303
Decision Date | 29 June 1982 |
Docket Number | No. WD32303,WD32303 |
Citation | 637 S.W.2d 752 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy HARRELL, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jeffery L. Alena, Kansas City, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Carl S. Yendes, Asst. Attys.Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, C. J., and WASSERSTROM and MANFORD, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a conviction by jury of robbery in the first degree.His points on appeal all relate to the refusal by the trial court to strike members of the venire for cause.
During the course of the voir dire, venireman Sipes and venirewoman Confer were stricken for cause because of their expressed prejudice arising from other robberies in which each of them had been involved.Venireman Downs was also stricken for cause because of his claim of knowledge of what was going on in the Westport Area of Kansas City and his admission that the knowledge mentioned would prejudice him against the defendant.The voir dire examination then continued as follows:
(THE PROCEEDINGS RETURNED TO OPEN COURT.)
Veniremen Parker and James then stated that they felt like Humphrey did.Then the matter proceeded as follows:
* * *
* * *
Do you all understand that under the law, as Mr. Schaffer said, the fact that the defendant has been charged with a crime does not mean or proves he is guilty of a crime?Does anybody have any problems accepting that?In other words, do any of you feel that merely because the defendant is here charged with robbery in the first degree that he must have done it?Anybody in this section?
After some intervening interrogation by counsel, the trial court returned to the subject of whether the mere fact of the defendant being charged should be considered as evidence against him.The following occurred at that point:
And Mrs. Humphrey, do you understand what I said there?
On the basis of the foregoing, defendant moved to strike venirewomen Humphrey and Ocheskey for cause.Those motions were overruled.Defendant also moved to strike the entire panel, and that motion was also overruled.These rulings constitute the points relied upon for reversal by defendant on this appeal.
With respect to the refusal to strike Humphrey and Ocheskey, defendant contends that each of those venirewomen was disposed to attach weight to the mere fact that defendant had been arrested and charged with the crime.Not infrequently a prospective juror states initially on voir dire examination that he does have such a predisposition.However, when the...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Evans
...responses were so inflammatory and prejudicial that it can be said a right to a fair trial has been infringed. State v. Harrell, 637 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Mo.App.1982). Two cases in point make clear that Ramsey's lone comment fell short of that line. In State v. Taylor, 324 S.W.2d 643 (Mo.1959),......
-
State v. Edmonson, 17685
...Specifically, Draper and Schnick point with approval to (1) State v. Butler, 660 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Mo.App.1983), and State v. Harrell, 637 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Mo.App.1982), where defendants were held not to have been prejudiced because the testifying police officers did not provide any elements......
-
State v. Reed
...they were "so inflammatory and prejudicial that it can be said that a right to a fair trial has been infringed." State v. Harrell, 637 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Mo.App.1982). The comments complained of were responses to Reed's counsel's questions by Hunter. Earlier Hunter stated in reply to a questi......
-
State v. Brooks
...but then the officer's testimony was not critical to the case. See State v. Butler, 660 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Harrell, 637 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Mo.App.1982). Here the concern was with the venireperson's prejudice against Brooks if he did not testify. But in fact Brooks did tes......