State v. Haynes, No. 56494

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MORGAN, P.J., HENLEY and DONNELLY, JJ., and SCHOENLAUB
Citation482 S.W.2d 444
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Clarence HAYNES, Appellant
Docket NumberNo. 56494,No. 2
Decision Date17 July 1972

Page 444

482 S.W.2d 444
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
James Clarence HAYNES, Appellant.
No. 56494.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
July 17, 1972.

Page 445

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles B. Blackmar, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.

Robert H. Wendt, Robert A. Hampe, St. Louis, for appellant.

HENRY I. EAGER, Special Commissioner.

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and the punishment imposed by the jury was life imprisonment. The appeal is here on a late notice permitted by order of this Court. Defendant was represented at the trial and here by appointed counsel. No question is made on the sufficiency of the evidence, so a brief review of the facts will be sufficient. There will be some reference to additional evidence, received and proffered, in our discussion of one point.

The following facts were shown by the State's evidence. On March 13, 1970, one Leroy Visor, the deceased, and Anthony Shinault drove in Visor's car to his apartment at 621 Laurel Avenue in St. Louis at about 7:15 or 7:30 p.m. and parked in front of the apartment. Leroy got out and went over to his mother's residence next door, also an apartment; she was standing in the door. He 'approached' her, then rushed over to his own home; as he opened the door 'these two suspects' (so designated by Shinault) were trying to run out, and Visor seemingly gave one of them a shove; very shortly a shot was heard and also screaming. At this point we pick up the testimony of Leroy's 'common law wife,' Laberta Hopson, who was inside. She heard three fast knocks on the front door, opened it a little, and two men forced their way in. One she positively identified as the defendant, and the other as a man whom she had known as 'Johnny.' She had known defendant about four months and he had been in her home perhaps 20 times. Defendant had a sawed-off shotgun, 'threw' it in her face, shoved her back, hit her in the face with his hand, and made her lie down on the floor. He placed his foot in the middle of her back and jabbed at her head with the gun; he asked for money and was told that she did not have any. At that time 'Johnny' went into the bedroom and brought out a portable television and then started taking some guitars out of the closet in the front room. At this stage of the proceedings Leroy Visor came to the front door and started in; defendant was there and Leroy grabbed him by the shoulders. Defendant 'jerked back,' put the gun to Leroy's head as he came in, and shot him; Leroy fell on the living room floor. Defendant then started 'backing' out of the door. Neither defendant nor Leroy had said anything. Laberta heard two more shots in front of the home; she positively identified the defendant

Page 446

in a lineup and at the trial as the one who shot Leroy.

Shinault, still sitting in the car, saw 'one suspect' run out the door and down the street; then the other one came out, and ran or 'backed' toward the car then 'swerved' toward Leroy's mother's home; he heard a 'click,' laid down across the front seat, heard two shots, and stayed there until the police came. This witness did not, and indicated that he could not, identify either man and did not see their faces. He had known the defendant for about eight years, but made no pretense of identifying him.

Lucille Visor, Leroy's mother, called the police as her son left her house; she went to her front door and opened it slightly when she heard the shot in Leroy's home. She testified: that she saw James Haynes, pointing him out as the defendant, backing along the sidewalk in front of her door; that he faced her, had a gun, and shot twice, once up the street and again toward her son's car; the lighting was good, and she had known defendant for about three months, as he had been coming to her son's home; that she recognized defendant as soon as she opened the door. She identified him definitely at the trial.

The police came promptly, interrogated Laberta and took various photos of the scene. Leroy was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital. The photos were received in evidence. Defendant was not at his home when the officers went there, but he was arrested about 3:00 a.m. the next morning at a restaurant. His coat or jacket, his trousers, and his shirt were taken as evidence and offered at the trial. Laberta and the mother identified the coat as looking like the one defendant was wearing at the time of the shooting.

Defendant took the stand, denied all connection with the murder, and testified to facts which placed him elsewhere at the time in question. Several witnesses, members of defendant's family and friends, testified to facts placing him elsewhere before, after, or at the time of the killing. Some of these identified clothes as the ones defendant was wearing on that day or evening.

Defendant's first point is that he was deprived of due process and a fair and impartial jury because the Court excluded for cause four prospective jurors, upon their responses to inquiries regarding the death penalty. The point is denied for two reasons: (1) the death penalty was not imposed; and (2) the questions were not improper. Defendant relies on Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776; State v. Pinkston, 336 Mo. 614, 79 S.W.2d 1046, and State v. Thursby, Mo., 246 S.W.2d 859. Thursby is in nowise applicable. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • State v. Crow, No. 56529
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 11, 1972
    ...State v. Franklin, Mo., 459 S.W.2d 314; State v. Quinn, Mo., 461 S.W.2d 812; State v. Richards, Mo., 467 S.W.2d 33; State v. Haynes, Mo., 482 S.W.2d 444 (adopted July 17, 1972). Appellant's 'hanging jury' argument was considered and rejected by this court in State v. Quinn, Citing Miranda v......
  • State v. Williams, No. 35554
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1975
    ...foundation by asking the witness whether he made the specific statement upon which he is sought to be discredited. State v. Haynes, 482 S.W.2d 444, 447 (Mo.1972); State v. Dent, 473 S.W.2d 370 (Mo.1971); State v. Hughes, 460 S.W.2d 600 (Mo.1970). This appellant did not do, and the trial cou......
  • Oventrop v. Bi-State Development Agency, BI-STATE
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 1975
    ...was negligent as submitted in Instruction No. 5 and that plaintiff sustained damage as a direct result thereof.' 3 See State v. Haynes, 482 S.W.2d 444...
  • State v. Csolak, No. 37826
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 1, 1978
    ...or insufficient reason for the action taken (cites omitted)." State v. Garton, 371 S.W.2d 283, 290 (Mo.1963). Accord: State v. Haynes, 482 S.W.2d 444 (Mo.1972); Umfress v. State, 512 S.W.2d 178 (Mo.App.1974). The state seeks to justify this warrantless search on several alternative theories......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • State v. Crow, No. 56529
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 11, 1972
    ...State v. Franklin, Mo., 459 S.W.2d 314; State v. Quinn, Mo., 461 S.W.2d 812; State v. Richards, Mo., 467 S.W.2d 33; State v. Haynes, Mo., 482 S.W.2d 444 (adopted July 17, 1972). Appellant's 'hanging jury' argument was considered and rejected by this court in State v. Quinn, Citing Miranda v......
  • State v. Williams, No. 35554
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1975
    ...foundation by asking the witness whether he made the specific statement upon which he is sought to be discredited. State v. Haynes, 482 S.W.2d 444, 447 (Mo.1972); State v. Dent, 473 S.W.2d 370 (Mo.1971); State v. Hughes, 460 S.W.2d 600 (Mo.1970). This appellant did not do, and the trial cou......
  • Oventrop v. Bi-State Development Agency, BI-STATE
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 1975
    ...was negligent as submitted in Instruction No. 5 and that plaintiff sustained damage as a direct result thereof.' 3 See State v. Haynes, 482 S.W.2d 444...
  • State v. Csolak, No. 37826
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 1, 1978
    ...or insufficient reason for the action taken (cites omitted)." State v. Garton, 371 S.W.2d 283, 290 (Mo.1963). Accord: State v. Haynes, 482 S.W.2d 444 (Mo.1972); Umfress v. State, 512 S.W.2d 178 (Mo.App.1974). The state seeks to justify this warrantless search on several alternative theories......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT