State v. Jennings, 10166
| Decision Date | 15 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 10166,10166 |
| Citation | 555 S.W.2d 366 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jerry JENNINGS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Frank Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Don W. Owensby, Buffalo, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant Jerry Jennings was tried as a habitual criminal and convicted of the second degree murder of Joe Woodruff. The trial judge sentenced defendant to life imprisonment. In this appeal he contends he was entitled to a preliminary hearing when the information was amended to charge first degree murder, an autopsy report was erroneously admitted as a business record, and that he should have had a mental examination. We affirm.
The sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict is not questioned. There was substantial evidence from which the jury could find that defendant fatally shot Woodruff with a shotgun and pushed the latter's body into a stream.
The original charge against the defendant alleged second degree murder, inasmuch as it omitted the word "deliberate." Following a preliminary hearing, the defendant was bound over to circuit court and the information charging second degree murder was filed. Thereafter, the state was permitted to amend the information by inserting "deliberately" as an element. Defendant claims the amendment was error and he was entitled to have the case remanded to the magistrate court for a preliminary hearing on the first degree murder charge.
The transcript reflects that prior to the amendment, the trial court explained to the defendant his rights concerning a preliminary hearing on the amended charge and that both defendant and his employed counsel advised the judge that defendant waived the defendant's "right to any preliminary hearing on the charge, as amended." Defendant's waiver is authorized under Rule 23.02, V.A.M.R., and the point is without merit.
There was no error in the admission of the autopsy report as a business record because the pathologist's secretary testified as to its identity, its mode of preparation, that it was made in the regular course of business, and at or near the time of the autopsy. The report met the statutory requirements of a business record (§ 490.680, RSMo 1969) and was admissible as such. Rossomanno v. Laclede Cab Company, 328 S.W.2d 677 (Mo. banc 1959). Pathologist's reports constitute an admissible business record if the statutory requirements are met. State v. Payne, 342 S.W.2d 950 (Mo.1961); State v. Cheatham, 340 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.1960). By the testimony of the unavailable doctor's secretary the autopsy report was properly admitted as a business record. The point is denied.
Defendant's final point is that the court should have ordered a psychiatric hearing as to mental condition under § 552.020, RSMo 1969. We are left in the dark whether the suggested psychiatric examination was for the purpose of determining mental disease or defect excluding responsibility or mental disease or defect excluding fitness to proceed, but in either event we find no error.
Defendant, with employed counsel, entered a not guilty plea in January of 1975. Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility was not pled as a defense as required by the statute. § 552.030.2, RSMo 1969. On the date of trial, August 21, 1975, defendant's court appointed attorney made a rambling statement to the court in which he stated he wanted to call to the judge's attention that defendant had allegedly attempted self-destruction at some time in the past and he understood defendant was presently taking medication. The trial judge conducted an inquiry as to the nature and amount of medication defendant was taking, interrogated the defendant at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garrett
...is required to enter such an order only when a bona fide issue of doubt exists as to a defendant's capacity to proceed. State v. Jennings, 555 S.W.2d 366 (Mo.App.1977). "(T)he real issue is whether the court had reasonable cause to believe that appellant had a mental disease or defect exclu......
-
State v. Weaver
...the court could receive the report in evidence. § 490.680, RSMo 1994; State v. Cheatham, 340 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Mo.1960); State v. Jennings, 555 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Mo.App.1977). X. Under his tenth point, defendant again in violation of Rule 84.04(d) combines a series of eleven claims of ineffecti......
-
Jennings v. State, 12274
...habitual criminal, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Upon appeal to this court, his conviction was affirmed. State v. Jennings, 555 S.W.2d 366 (Mo.App.1977). In this case he seeks to have his sentence set aside by his motion filed under Rule 27.26. After an evidentiary hearing, ......
-
State v. Willis
...certificate of cost of preparing the transcript shows a charge of $667.70, payable by Greene County. As we did in State v. Jennings, 555 S.W.2d 366 (Mo.App.1977), we direct the trial court to allow the reporter as costs only those matters which are properly included in the transcript pursua......