State v. Henderson, 52112
| Decision Date | 05 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 52112,52112 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Fred HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Henry B. Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., L. Timothy Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
The defendant, Fred Henderson, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced him, as a prior offender, to life imprisonment without parole. He appeals his conviction and we affirm.
On October 4, 1984 the defendant and Kenneth Whiteside went to the home of Renea Henderson, defendant's sister-in-law. They asked her for money to call a taxicab and defendant picked up his sawed-off shotgun and some shells. The two went to a pay phone, called a cab to Renea Henderson's address, then returned to Renea's house and waited for the cab to arrive. While waiting defendant told Whiteside that he was going to rob the cab driver, make him disrobe and then shoot him. Whiteside agreed to pretend to be blind by walking with a stick.
The cab arrived and defendant sat in the front seat and Whiteside sat in the rear. Defendant pulled the gun out of a pillowcase, told the driver to slide over and Whiteside drove the car to a viaduct on Kingshighway. Defendant instructed the driver to disrobe down to his underwear and to "start walking". The driver pleaded for his life and defendant fired three shots the last of which struck the driver in the heart and killed him. Defendant and Whiteside used the fourteen dollars they took from the driver to buy marijuana and liquor.
On the same day two men noticed an unoccupied taxicab in an alley and notified the police. The police, with the assistance of the cab company, determined that the last call the cab had made was to 2733 Rutger, the home of Renea Henderson. A day later the body of the driver, James Alfred, was found near a Kingshighway viaduct.
The police went to the home of Renea Henderson who told them that the defendant and Whiteside had summoned the cab and that defendant could be found at his grandmother's home. When the police arrived there they were admitted into the house by the grandmother. The defendant was found hiding under a pile of clothes in a bedroom closet.
In his first point defendant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the state's voir dire regarding the law of accomplice liability. In particular, he argues that while in the course of questioning to determine the veniremen's ability to follow the law, the prosecutor instructed the jury on the law of accomplice liability and thereby sought a commitment from the jury. Defendant also argues that upon instructing the jury on accomplice liability, which in itself was improper, the prosecutor compounded her error by instructing them on the felony murder rule rather than first degree murder.
The prosecutor informed the jury that defendant was charged with acting with another. The court allowed her to briefly comment as to the facts of the case to familiarize the panelists with the circumstances and to briefly explain the concept of acting with another. It is clear from the record that the prosecutor was trying to determine whether any of the panelists had any personal qualms about holding a person responsible for the crimes of another. Two panelists responded to this line of questioning in the affirmative and the court allowed the prosecutor to explore the juror's thoughts to determine whether they could follow the law regardless of their personal feelings.
The trial judge is in the best position to determine how the jury is affected by a particular line of questioning and has considerable discretion in the process. The appellate court will not interfere unless the record shows manifest abuse of discretion and real probability of injury to the complaining party. State v. Cooper, 719 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Mo.App.1986). A juror may not be asked what verdict he would render if certain facts were shown. State v. Green, 511 S.W.2d 867, 872 (Mo.1974). The jurors in this case were not asked to so commit themselves, but rather, they were asked if personal feelings would prevent them from following the instructions of the court regarding accomplice liability. We find no abuse of discretion.
During this same line of questioning, the following exchange took place:
Defendant argues that the above statements by the prosecutor had the effect of instructing the jury on law inapplicable to the case. However, it is clear from the record that after the defendant objected, the court guided the prosecutor back to a discussion of accomplice liability. We find no abuse of discretion.
In defendant's second point he argues that the trial court erred in failing to quash the jury panel after the prosecution used four of its peremptory challenges to remove all but one black veniremen from the jury panel. He argues that the record showed a racially discriminatory pattern in the exercise of the peremptory challenges which the state was unable to rebut.
In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the Court held that a defendant establishes a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the selection of the petit jury when he shows: (1) that he is a member of a cognizable racial group; (2) that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove members of defendant's race from the jury panel; and (3) that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude the veniremen from the jury on account of their race. In addition, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those who are inclined to discriminate to do so. State v. Hood, 745 S.W.2d 785, 786 (Mo.App.1988). In deciding whether the defendant has made a prima facie showing, the reviewing court is required to give substantial deference to the decision of the trial judge. Batson, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. Once the defendant has made a prima facie showing of racial discrimination the burden shifts to the state to articulate a neutral and reasonably specific explanation of its legitimate reason for exercising the challenge. Id. at 1723, 1724 n. 20.
The recent decision in State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51, 64 (Mo. banc 1987) has provided guidance in the interpretation and implementation of the principles enunciated in Batson.
As a practical matter, the third element of the prima facie case under Batson--'facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used [his peremptory challenges] to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race'--requires the trial court to consider the State's explanation of the manner in which it employed its challenges prior to making a final determination as to whether a prima facie case exists.
Recognizing the deference due the trial court in determining whether an articulated reason is legitimate or not, we review the determination of the trial court for clear error. Id. at 66. Here the trial court made insufficient findings with regard to the Batson issue. The court, upon defendant's motion to quash the jury panel, stated that obvious non-racial reasons existed for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cummings
... ... See State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 335-36 (Mo. banc 1993); State v. Henderson, 750 S.W.2d 555, 557 ... 134 S.W.3d 109 ... (Mo.App.1988). The use of hypotheticals for this purpose also is permissible. State v. Seddens, ... ...
-
State v. Hefflinger, ED 80828.
...time, State v. Taylor, 929 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Mo. App.1996); and destruction, suppression, or fabrication of evidence, State v. Henderson, 750 S.W.2d 555, 560 (Mo.App. 1988). A defendant's conduct or failure to act in these circumstances gives rise to an inference of a guilty mind or consciou......
-
State v. Smith
...evidence, the trial court's implicit finding that defendant failed to make a prima facie case is clearly erroneous. State v. Henderson, 750 S.W.2d 555, 558 (Mo.App.1988). The finding is clearly erroneous, if on review of all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction th......
-
State v. Hall, s. 54348
...not disclose that an express, formal motion, under Batson, was made.2 See State v. Hood, 745 S.W.2d 785 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Henderson, 750 S.W.2d 555 (Mo.App.1988); compare, State v. Herron, 745 S.W.2d 835 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Jackson, 746 S.W.2d 429 ...