State v. Hendricks

Decision Date13 July 1970
Docket NumberNo. 1,No. 55270,55270,1
Citation456 S.W.2d 11
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph HENDRICKS, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Charles A. Blackmar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Simon G. Miller, Clayton, for appellant.

ARTHUR W. ROGERS, Special Judge.

Appellant, Joseph Hendricks, was charged with the murder of one Francis A. Krewet. After conviction (jury trial) of murder in the first degree and sentence to life imprisonment, he appeals. The points relied on by appellant are: 1) the state failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt an essential element in the crime charged, to-wit, that defendant made an assault on one Francis Krewet on the 22d day of October 1968, and 2) the court erred in denying defendant's motions to suppress statements made by defendant to police officers and video tape recordings taken in the prosecuting attorney's office in that these statements were obtained by means of mental and physical coercion.

We note that appellant does not contend that corpus delicti was not proven. In fact he concedes that the state presented substantial evidence that a deadly assault was made upon Krewet in the latter's home on the 22d day of October 1968. But, says defendant, no substantial evidence was adduced that he was in Krewet's house on that day.

The evidence presented by the state was that one Leroy Smith resided next door to the Krewet home and that defendant resided on the other side of the Smith home. Mr. Smith testified that on a Tuesday, around 1:30 a.m., he and his family returned to their home and he saw defendant coming from Krewet's house across a gangplank into the Smith yard and across it to his, defendant's, home; that defendant came from the back of the rear of Buttermilk's house; that Mr. Krewet was known as 'Buttermilk'. Officer Harris of the Wellston, Missouri, police department, testified that he and one Polys, another officer, went to the Krewet home on October 24 and described the condition in which he found Krewet. He further stated that he saw defendant at the police station that evening around 6:00 o'clock; that defendant was advised of his rights and waived each of them individually and admitted that he and one Timms planned to rob Buttermilk on Monday night or Tuesday morning. This officer related the story of defendant as it was given him of breaking into the Krewet home, ransacking it, and laying in wait until Krewet arrived when they assaulted him. Newspapers dated October 21, 22, and 23 were still in the Krewet yard. Harris testified that he learned that Krewet last worked at his regular place of employment on October 21, and that he, Krewet, left Gen and Marv's Tavern at approximately 1:00 or 1:30, at closing time, and that he had come in at 7:00 p.m. on October 21. Police officer Katz testified that defendant, after being advised of his rights, at 6:00 o'clock on October 25 admitted that late October 21 or early October 22, he and one Timms assaulted and robbed Krewet in Krewet's home and that later that night defendant was taken to the prosecuting attorney's office where video tape recordings of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Hamell
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 18. Oktober 1977
    ...use of videotaped evidence. Hendricks v. Swenson, 456 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1972); State v. Lindsey, 507 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.1974); State v. Hendricks, 456 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1970); State v. Lusk, 452 S.W.2d 219 (Mo.1970). In State v. Lusk, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the admission of a videotape......
  • State v. Lindsey
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11. März 1974
    ...under which it was made, has previously been approved by this court in State v. Lusk, 452 S.W.2d 219 (Mo.1970), and State v. Hendricks, 456 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1970). The trial court heard the testimony to the effect that video tape was an accurate reproduction of what was said by appellant and a......
  • People v. Higgins
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 16. Februar 1977
    ...5th Amendment upheld the use of video-taped evidence at the trial, State of Missouri v. Lusk, 452 S.W.2d 219 (1970); State of Missouri v. Hendricks, 456 S.W.2d 11 (1970). In Lusk and Hendricks, supra, the courts ruled that defendant's confession recorded on the video medium did not violate ......
  • Hendricks v. Swenson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 30. März 1972
    ...imprisonment on September 12, 1969. He appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Hendricks, 456 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. 1970). The claims on appeal are: (1) that the State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt an essential element of the cri......
  • 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