State v. James, 10704
| Decision Date | 06 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 10704,10704 |
| Citation | 562 S.W.2d 185 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Roosevelt Willie JAMES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
James A. DeReign, DeReign & DeReign, Caruthersville, for defendant-appellant.
Before BILLINGS, C. J., and HOGAN and TITUS, JJ.
Roosevelt Willie James was jury-convicted of second degree burglary and stealing "soda pop" from a laundromat in Hayti, Missouri. Having been charged under the habitual criminal act, defendant was court-sentenced to consecutive prison terms of five years for burglary and two years for stealing.
Following arrest, defendant was said to have numerously initialed and twice-signed a bipartite "Voluntary Statement." The first section consisted of a printed form which detailed defendant's Miranda rights and his signed waiver thereof; the second segment was a six page confession of having committed the offenses of burglary and stealing with no mention of car theft. At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress the statement, defendant testified that albeit two police officers threatened him with additional prosecution for auto theft if he did not sign the "Voluntary Statement," he refused to do so and, in fact, had never signed nor initialed the statement. The officers recounted that defendant had indeed initialed and signed the statement without any threats or promises having been made, and the officer who actually prepared the statement-confession subsequently testified that he did not know at the time that any possible car theft charge was involved. The motion to suppress was "overruled and denied."
Including defendant's confession, the state's trial-evidence showed the following. J. T. "Heavy" Ellis, Jr., owned a "deuce-and-a-quarter Buick," i. e., a series 225. On the night in question and while Heavy was comatose from over-imbibing, defendant purloined the keys to the Buick and, together with Elzo Walker, drove to the laundromat. Elzo broke the padlock on the laundromat's storage room door and was required to also kick it open upon finding the door doublelocked. This accomplished, defendant and Elzo each helped themselves to three cases of soda which they placed in the Buick ere departing for the Tin Top. Upon arrival, Elzo sold his cases to "Skin" while defendant was secreting his in nearby weeds. Thereafter, defendant and one L. C. "Blue Foot" Parker returned to the laundromat and relieved it of additional soda. They then sold "a couple" of cases at the Soul Shack to the in-resident proprietor, Sylvester "Slim" Pearson, for $3 cash and a $1 pint of wine. An hour later defendant and Blue Foot returned to the Soul Shack but were unsuccessful in making a second soda sale to Slim. In the interim, Heavy effected a recovery of sorts, discovered and reported to the police that his Buick was missing. Robert Bird informed Heavy of his sighting of the Buick at the Soul Shack and they proceeded to that establishment arriving coincidentally with defendant's and Blue Foot's second effort at selling soda. Espying Heavy and Bird, defendant and Blue Foot took leave. Heavy repossessed the Buick, drove it to the police station and surrendered the cases of soda which reposed therein.
Defendant took the witness stand twice.
The first time, and in substance, defendant declared absolute innocence. Defendant stated the police represented that Elzo had confessed, implicating him, and should he refuse to sign the confession he would be additionally charged with stealing Heavy's car. Contrary to defendant's testimony on the motion to suppress the statement wherein he denied signing it, defendant testified he signed the confession in response to the threat through fright and not because the statement was true. Defendant swore he had not been with Elzo at the laundromat, denied having gone to the Soul Shack on the night in question and insisted that Heavy had not seen him with the Buick. The defense rested.
While the court was in recess as instructions were being discussed and prepared, a most novel thing occurred. Defendant insisted on retaking the witness stand to recant his previous testimony. In spite of extensive cautioning, admonishing and explaining by counsel and court as to the possible consequences which could result from this intended course, defendant remained adamant and the jury was recalled. With the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ross, 41527.
...statements. Where evidence is conflicting, the admissibility of a confession is in the discretion of the trial court. State v. James, 562 S.W.2d 185, 1872 (Mo.App.1978). We find that the trial court properly determined that the State had made a prima facie case of voluntariness of testimony......
-
State v. Miller, 11201
...rights. Where evidence is conflicting, the admissibility of a confession is in the discretion of the trial court. State v. James, 562 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Mo.App.1978). We find no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in overruling the motion to suppress. Nor can we say that the failure ......
-
State v. Quigley, 11292
...at 852. Where evidence is conflicting, the admissibility of a confession is in the discretion of the trial court. State v. James, 562 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Mo.App.1978). The trial court found that prior to the time the statements were made, the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights ......
-
State v. Frazier, 10973
...The trial court did not have to believe defendant'sself-serving statements. State v. Curry, supra, 578 S.W.2d at 285; State v. James, 562 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Mo.App.1978). That defendant may have been of low mentality does not render the confession inadmissible. It is merely one factor, althou......