State v. Hummel
| Decision Date | 24 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 45487,45487 |
| Citation | 652 S.W.2d 749 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Randall HUMMEL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John L. Harlan, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
A jury convicted appellant Randall Hummel (defendant) of second degree burglary and stealing without consent, Class C felonies under §§ 569.170 and 570.030 RSMo.1978, respectively, on proof he took jewelry, radios, and other miscellany valued at $150.00 or more from a Franklin County residence in 1981. The judgment entered on the verdict sentenced defendant to serve four years with the Department of Corrections on the burglary conviction and to pay a $2,500.00 fine for stealing. We affirm.
Defendant's convictions were largely a consequence of his oral and written statements to police when he was arrested--incriminating statements, which also led police to physical evidence of the crimes at defendant's home. Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence of those statements, claiming they were the product of the State's violating his constitutional right to counsel. Following a pretrial hearing defendant's motion to suppress was overruled, as was his objection to the evidence at trial on the same grounds. Defendant first assigns error to the trial court allowing the statements into evidence.
When the objection to evidence at trial is the same as that raised by a pre-trial motion to suppress, the part of the record we review on a claim the evidence was erroneously received is not the trial transcript but the transcript of the hearing on the pre-trial motion. See: State v. Brueckner, 617 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Mo.App.1981). It was defendant's responsibility under Rule 30.04(a) to include in his record on appeal the transcript of the pre-trial hearing. Defendant did not do so, and we are therefore unable to conduct a review on his claim of error. Id.
Defendant's second point is juror misconduct. When the prosecutor asked the jury panel on voir dire whether "anyone here today has been a victim of a crime," the eventual jury foreman said his place of business had been burglarized about five years earlier. Defendant says that about half an hour before he argued his motion for new trial, he discovered the juror's place of employment was burglarized about eight months prior to the trial. Defendant claims the juror's nondisclosure on voir dire of the latter burglary amounts to the kind of intentional failure to respond to a voir dire question that entitles defendant to a new trial, and that the trial court erroneously refused both defendant's offered amendment of the new trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Warfield, No. 18225
...hearing officer." "Allegations in a motion or in a brief unsupported by the record cannot be the basis of error. State v. Hummel, 652 S.W.2d 749, 751 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Friend, 607 S.W.2d 902, 904 (Mo.App.1980)." State v. Carr, 687 S.W.2d 606, 611 Section 302.312 reads: Copies of all p......
-
B---- M---- P----, In Interest of, s. 14089
... ... "The court erred in terminating appellant's parental rights with respect to all children in that the State failed to show by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that he repeatedly committed an act of incest and other sexual molestation (Section ... ...
-
State v. Finster, s. 19139
...suppression hearing, evidence received at trial, or both. See State v. Blackman, 875 S.W.2d 122, 135 (Mo.App.1994); See State v. Hummel, 652 S.W.2d 749, 750 (Mo.App.1983). This follows because a motion to suppress an incriminating statement is akin to a motion to suppress physical evidence,......
-
State v. Richardson, WD
...court examining the trial court's ruling reviews the transcript of the suppression hearing, not the trial transcript, State v. Hummel, 652 S.W.2d 749, 750 (Mo.App.1983), because the motion involves admissibility of evidence, an issue collateral to the accused's guilt or innocence. State v. ......