State v. Holland, 52285
| Citation | 412 S.W.2d 184 |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 52285,52285,2 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edgar HOLLAND, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Robert G. Duncan, Pierce, Duncan, Beitling & Shute, Kansas City, for appellant.
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Moody Mansur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
PRITCHARD, Commissioner.
For grounds under Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to secure the setting aside and vacation of his 1945 conviction of first degree murder, and the life sentence thereunder, appellant urges: I.A., The Missouri State Highway Patrol, in searching his home, violated the statutes of the state, the search and seizure of the various items obtained thereby and the evidence leading therefrom was unconstitutional and unreasonable; I.B., his conviction was substantially based upon admissions made while he was being held incommunicado and during a period of unreasonable delay in taking him before a judge under circumstances that were inherently coercive; and II, his constitutional protection against self-in-crimination and his right to due process of law was violated by the prosecuting attorney's prejudicial argument to the jury in which he commented to the jury that appellant had not given 'one word of testimony.'
Upon wholly circumstantial evidence, appellant's conviction of murdering his wife was affirmed by this court. State v. Holland, 354 Mo. 527, 189 S.W.2d 989. A detailed account of the evidence may be there found. He was, at the preliminary hearings, the initial trial and on direct appeal, represented by able counsel. In this matter of post conviction remedy under said Criminal Rule 27.26, appellant was accorded a full hearing, and was personally present with counsel throughout the same. The motion was taken under advisement and later overruled, but the trial court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Briefly, the homicide was discovered when the bodies of two decapitated women were found floating near the Grand Glaize bridge in the Lake of the Ozarks on April 16 and 17, 1944. Both had been shot with a shotgun, and the right leg of the first woman found had been amputated. After difficulty and delay the victims were positively identified (the wife through her fingerprints) and appellant's arrest and charge for the murder of his wife was made.
Appellant's first contention that the search of his home and the seizure and use without his consent of certain evidence there found must be ruled against him. Although there was no search warrant issued, and the Missouri State Highway Fatrol had not then the right or power of search or seizure in these circumstances (see § 8362, RSMo 1939, V.A.M.S.; State v. Jones, 358 Mo. 398, 214 S.W.2d 705, 707; State v. Smith, 357 Mo. 467, 209 S.W.2d 138), there was not one objection to the admission in evidence of the seized items in the 1945 trial. Counsel many times stated specifically no objection thereto. There was no motion to suppress any of the evidence now claimed to have been illegally seized; not one word was said about it in the motion for new trial. Obviously, from the reading of the original record, which we have before us, and the reported opinion, State v. Holland, supra, appellant's strategy was to attack the sufficiency of this wholly circumstantial evidence case to sustain his conviction. Appellant testified that he knew, prior to trial, that a search had been made of his premises, and certain items were taken by the officers. In State v. Webb, Mo., 400 S.W.2d 84, defendant did file a motion to suppress seized evidence, but no objection was interposed to its admission and the matter was not presented upon appeal. It was there said, loc. cit. 400 S.W.2d 85(3, 4), See comparable holdings under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, Cox v. United States (C.A.8th Cir.), 351 F.2d 280; Kapsalis v. United States (C.A.7), 345 F.2d 392, cert den. 382 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 406, 15 L.Ed.2d 354.
The record does not show that appellant was held by the Highway Patrol incommunicado for an unreasonable time and that there was an unreasonable delay in taking him before a judge. Appellant's testimony in this hearing, which was for the trial court to believe or disbelieve, was that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Caffey
...of illegal search and seizure is not such a matter as may be raised in a collateral attack upon a judgment of conviction. State v. Holland, Mo.Sup., 412 S.W.2d 184; State v. Webb, Mo.Sup., 400 S.W.2d 84(3, 4); State v. Engberg, Mo.Sup., 391 S.W.2d 868; State v. Worley, Mo.Sup., 383 S.W.2d 5......
-
Holland v. Swenson
...motion was denied on May 28, 1966, and the denial was affirmed on appeal by the Missouri Supreme Court on March 13, 1967 (State v. Holland, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 184); and that he was represented by counsel at his arraignment and plea, at his trial, at his sentencing, on appeal and "as to some" o......
-
State v. Hester
...before June 13, 1966. They are, therefore, inapplicable here.' See also State v. Rapp, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 120, loc. cit. 125, State v. Holland, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 184, loc. cit. 186, and State v. Dixon, Mo., 411 S.W.2d 185, 186. As noted at outset of this opinion, the instant case was tried in Ju......
-
Mahurin v. State
... ... State v. Howe, Mo.Sup., 364 S.W.2d 546, 547(3); State v. Engberg, Mo.Sup., 391 S.W.2d 868, 871(8); State v. Holland, Mo.Sup., 412 S.W.2d 184, 185(1, 2) ... The trial court's ruling that the matter was not reviewable on 27.26 is correct and we do ... ...