State v. Hicks, No. 58307
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 515 S.W.2d 518 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Frank HICKS, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 58307,No. 2 |
Page 518
v.
Frank HICKS, Appellant.
Page 519
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Frank R. Fabbri, III, Asst. Public Defender, 22nd Judicial Circuit, St. Louis, for appellant Frank Hicks.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a judgment convicting Frank Hicks of murder in the first degree and sentencing him to life imprisonment. This Court has jurisdiction under its order of April 9, 1973.
This judgment and sentence must be reversed for error in overruling appellant's motion to suppress and admitting in evidence certain articles of personal property belonging to the deceased, because they were obtained as a result of a warrantless and illegal search of the person of appellant.
Alberta Catchings was found dead, lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen of her apartment at 4106 Enright Avenue. Her body was discovered by a friend at 6:40 o'clock on the morning of April 29, 1970. The police were called, the body was removed to the morgue, and an investigation was commenced. Prior to that date appellant
Page 520
had been living at the home of his mother at 4011 Enright Avenue. About 1 p.m. on that date Detective Newsom made a telephone call to Willie Mae Hicks, appellant's mother, asking for permission to come to the home and talk to her son Frank 'because Frank had been in an institution.' Detective Newsom was aware of appellant's history of 'having been at Fulton and having psychiatric problems'; knew that he had been committed by a court to the Fulton institution, from which he had been recently released, and that appellant had a history and record of previous arrests. Sergeant Rowane of the St. Louis Police Department had informed the officers that Frank Hicks was 'a prime suspect'; that he had 'recently got out of the penitentiary.' (He served time for second degree burglary. Nothing indicates that the officers knew the nature of the crime for which he was imprisoned.) Pursuant to the telephone call Detectives Newsom and McCarty appeared at Willie Mae Hicks' apartment at 4:30 that afternoon. She and appellant and several others were present. Detective Newsom testified that 'armed with some information that we had received beforehand' (the nature of which was not revealed) the officers went to 4011 Enright for the purpose of picking up appellant and taking him downtown to the central district police station for questioning. Detective McCarty testified that the officers took appellant to the homicide office as a suspect in the murder of Alberta Catchings; that at the time they picked up appellant the officers had already formed the intention to book him for homicide. Upon their arrival the officers 'patted down' appellant, i.e., made 'a light search' to see if he had a gun, but did not conduct a thorough search of his person. The officers arrested him, took him into custody, and informed him that they were going to take appellant downtown for questioning. There was some excitement. His mother and aunt did not want him to go. Appellant 'was fighting * * * raising Cain, * * * saying he didn't do it * * *,' but the officers handcuffed appellant's hands behind him and he 'had to go.' Arriving at the downtown central district police station at approximately 5 p.m. the officers took appellant directly to the interrogation room, advised him of his rights, and informed him that he was a suspect in the murder of Alberta Catchings. After ten or fifteen minutes of questioning appellant stated that Alberta was his cousin and that he had visited her in her apartment the previous night. The officers gave two different reasons for thereupon conducting a search of appellant's person. Detective Newsom testified that it was because appellant was giving evasive answers. Detective McCarty testified that they searched him 'for weapons.' The State gives a third reason, i.e., that it was routine inventory search customarily made at time of booking. The search, made without a warrant, was conducted not at the place of original arrest but at headquarters, and not at the booking desk but in the homicide office. In appellant's pants pocket the officers found some costume jewelry, a pocketknife, a lady's wristwatch, a lady's ring, and a tie clasp. Detective Newsom testified that he did not know at that time to whom the costume jewelry belonged. Appellant told the officers that a girl friend had given the costume jewelry to him 'sometime back' but refused to name the girl friend. After the search appellant was arrested for the murder of Alberta Catchings. After an hour or so expired he was taken to another part of the building, where he was booked for murder at about 6:30 p.m. The articles removed from appellant's pocket (except for the lady's ring and pocketknife) were identified at the trial as the property of the deceased, and all of these articles were admitted in evidence.The State concedes that appellant was arrested at his mother's apartment, when he 'struggled and was handcuffed,' and seeks to justify the warrantless search of appellant's person at the police station and the seizure of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
25 practice notes
-
State v. Lasley, No. 60897
...69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); State v. Smith, 462 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Mo.1970) (per curiam). Our holding is not inconsistent with State v. Hicks, 515 S.W.2d 518 (Mo.1974) (per curiam) and State v. Goodman, 449 S.W.2d 656 (Mo.1970), cited by appellant. In those cases it was held that a search incident t......
-
State v. Johnson, No. 35416
...and reasons of policy in the administration of justice.' State v. Wynne, 353 Mo. 276, 182 S.W.2d 294, 299(6) (1944); State v. Hicks, 515 S.W.2d 518, 523(11, 12) (Mo.1974). More specifically, in criminal cases Missouri courts have often stated that 'weapons and objects not connected with the......
-
State v. Dixon, No. 44769
...cause means more than mere suspicion, Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168 , 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); State v. Hicks, 515 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Mo.1974), its existence must be determined by practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable persons act and not the hinds......
-
State v. Seager, No. 68535
...that the same person committed both acts. See Commonwealth v. Gullett, 459 Pa. 431, 434, 329 A.2d 513, 515 (1974); State v. Hicks, 515 S.W.2d 518, 521-23 (Mo.1974). Although we base our decision on a different reason, we believe the trial court was correct in ordering the suppression of the......
Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
-
State v. Lasley, No. 60897
...69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); State v. Smith, 462 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Mo.1970) (per curiam). Our holding is not inconsistent with State v. Hicks, 515 S.W.2d 518 (Mo.1974) (per curiam) and State v. Goodman, 449 S.W.2d 656 (Mo.1970), cited by appellant. In those cases it was held that a search incident t......
-
State v. Johnson, No. 35416
...and reasons of policy in the administration of justice.' State v. Wynne, 353 Mo. 276, 182 S.W.2d 294, 299(6) (1944); State v. Hicks, 515 S.W.2d 518, 523(11, 12) (Mo.1974). More specifically, in criminal cases Missouri courts have often stated that 'weapons and objects not connected with the......
-
State v. Dixon, No. 44769
...cause means more than mere suspicion, Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168 , 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); State v. Hicks, 515 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Mo.1974), its existence must be determined by practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable persons act and not the hinds......
-
State v. Seager, No. 68535
...that the same person committed both acts. See Commonwealth v. Gullett, 459 Pa. 431, 434, 329 A.2d 513, 515 (1974); State v. Hicks, 515 S.W.2d 518, 521-23 (Mo.1974). Although we base our decision on a different reason, we believe the trial court was correct in ordering the suppression of the......
Request a trial to view additional results