State v. Hunter

• Decision Date: 04 November 1976
• Docket Number: No. KCD,KCD
• Citation: 544 S.W.2d 58
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jack Lee HUNTER, Appellant. 28144.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 58

544 S.W.2d 58

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jack Lee HUNTER, Appellant.

No. KCD 28144.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

Nov. 4, 1976.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied Nov. 29, 1976.

Motion to Transfer Denied Jan. 10, 1977.

Thomas M. Larson, Public Defender, Lee M. Nation, Asst. Public Defender, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Kansas City, for appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Neil MacFarlane, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DIXON, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and WASSERSTROM, J.

PRITCHARD, Chief Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of forgery, possession with intent to utter, by the verdict of a jury. Upon a finding of a prior offense, as pleaded, appellant was sentenced by the court as a second offender to 8 years imprisonment in the Department of Corrections.

Urging reversal, appellant presents the single point the the trial court erred in limiting the cross-examination of state's witness, Sherry Shanks, a bank teller, as to her possible motivation for testifying (in identifying appellant as the person who attempted to pass the check). It is claimed that the cross-examination was relevant to the witness' possible bias and credibility. From the offer of proof, it is argued that Sherry would testify that she felt compelled to testify; that her fear of losing her job would be a powerful incentive for her identification; and that the jury was entitled to know her motives for testifying.

The forgery in question was of a check stolen from the Southeast Medical Clinic on Swope Parkway in Kansas City. Sherry Shanks was a teller at the Columbia Union National Bank on March 13, 1975, when appellant, who was identified by Sherry in court, drove up to the drive-in window, and inserted the check in the drawer. The check was endorsed 'Howard Mayo', and Sherry ascertained from the account number on the check that that person did have an account at Columbia Union. She then compared the endorsement with the bank cards of signatures and they did not match. She obtained an opinion from her superior that the signatures did not match, and then went back and advised appellant that they did not match. Appellant was asked by Sherry if he had any further identification and he told her he did not and something to the effect that it was at home, and then he told her he would come inside. Appellant then drove away, and as he did so, Sherry wrote down the type of car he was driving and its license number.

The ruling of the trial court, contended to be error in limiting the cross-examination, arose in this manner: It was developed that Sherry had worked for the Columbia Union since September, 1974; that she had worked for the Metcalf State Bank over in Kansas; and for K Mart where she accepted checks. She had made three identifications before. 'Q And one was at K Mart, is that right? A Yes. Q And I believe that one-- MR. WELCH: Your Honor, I object. I think he is going very far afield from the issue at hand here today. THE COURT: What is the purpose? * * * MR. ROTH: Your Honor, I think it's necessary to examine this witness to find out if, in fact, she is a credible witness since she has made identifications on prior incidents, three of which never went to court and the other one we don't know what happened to it, and I talked to her on an earlier occasion and she has told me that it's possible that she could lose her job as a teller if you accept too many bad checks as a teller. She has known a person that has happened to, and I feel it's completely relevant and goes to the credibility of this witness. MR. WELCH: Your Honor, it has no relevance at all. This girl has no control over whether a case goes to court or not. She is only a witness. MR. ROTH: I am not concerned about whether she has any control over it or not. My concern is to show that this person has at one time or the other made identifications-- THE COURT: You have already shown that. MR. ROTH: That's correct. Well, I mean I have to go further than that. I mean I have to ask this witness what the bank's policy is on this,...