State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 03 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 65939,67212,s. 65939 |
| Citation | 907 S.W.2d 311 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Rickey JOHNSON, Appellant. Rickey JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Raymond J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Rickey Johnson appeals convictions of first degree burglary and attempted second degree robbery. The court imposed consecutive fifteen and seven year sentences as a prior offender. Johnson also appeals denial of post conviction relief under Rule 29.15 without a hearing. We affirm.
Alice and Clyde Schaeffer, an elderly couple, resided at 4532A Oakland Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri. On July 29, 1993, Mrs. Schaeffer discovered Johnson in her home. Johnson grabbed her by her throat and demanded money; she screamed. Mr. Schaeffer heard the scream. He grabbed his shotgun and ran to his wife. He approached Johnson in the hallway pointing the shotgun to his head and ordering Johnson to release his wife. Johnson grabbed the shotgun from Mr. Schaeffer, knocking him to the floor, then fled with the gun.
The St. Louis City Police received two anonymous tips six days after the burglary. A phone tip informed police a black man named "Rickey", about thirty years of age, lived at 4537 Oakland and "was responsible for a burglary in the same block...." That same day, another person arrived at the Detective Bureau and reported Rickey Johnson had a double-barrel shotgun at 4537 Oakland. The police ran a computer check based on the information provided by the tips and discovered a burglary occurred at 4532A Oakland and a double-barrel shotgun was taken.
Based on this information, three officers proceeded to 4537 Oakland to investigate. They knocked on the door, but received no answer. The officers walked to the back of the house and found Johnson sitting on the back steps. One of the officers informed Johnson of the burglary investigation, advised him of his Miranda rights and then proceeded to question him. At the same time, another officer noticed the rear door ajar. He saw a double-barrel shotgun leaning against the kitchen corner. One of the officers entered the residence, seized the shotgun, and took it across the street to the elderly couple's home where Mr. Schaeffer identified it.
Johnson contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the shotgun because it violates his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizures. Johnson also claims the seizure occurred before he was placed under arrest. The state responds by asserting the shotgun was admissible because it was lawfully seized from Johnson's home under the "open view" doctrine and the "exigent circumstance" doctrine. An appellate court will affirm a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress if the evidence is sufficient to sustain such a finding. State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 14 (Mo. banc 1992). All facts and reasonable inferences are viewed in favor of the order challenged on appeal. Id.
The evidence supports a finding Johnson was arrested before or contemporaneously with the seizure of the shotgun. The officers had probable cause to suspect Johnson committed the burglary because: (1) he lived across the street from the Schaeffers; (2) police received two anonymous tips Rickey Johnson had a double-barrel shotgun at 4537 Oakland and he was responsible for the Schaeffer burglary; and, (3) a patently untruthful denial by Johnson that he had a shotgun.
When Johnson did not answer the front door, the police proceeded to the back of the house where they saw him. At first, Johnson denied owning a gun. During their investigation, it was by chance one of the officers noticed through an open door, a double-barrel shotgun leaning against the wall in the kitchen. The officer immediately informed his partner of the shotgun. When one of the officers confronted Johnson, he admitted he bought the shotgun a couple of months earlier on the street and lied about it because he was still on parole. Then the officers arrested Johnson and recovered the shotgun.
The warrantless seizure of the shotgun was justified under the "plain view" doctrine. An officer may seize evidence in "plain view" without a warrant if the item to be seized is clearly incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right to be. Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 5, 102 S.Ct. 812, 816, 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982); State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 14 (Mo. banc 1992).
The police officers were lawfully in the position that afforded them plain view into the kitchen and their discovery was inadvertent. The open rear door exposed the interior of the kitchen to plain view by the officers. Stepping through the open door to retrieve the shotgun was not an unreasonable seizure. See, State v. Duncan, 866 S.W.2d 510, 513 (Mo.App.1993). Further, the officers believed they had incriminating evidence before them. One of the officers testified the shotgun resembled the gun described by the crime reports.
The only thing that would differentiate [this particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Olson, 72079
...of the evidence to sustain the trial court's conclusion about whether the stop violated defendant's rights. State v. Johnson, 907 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Mo.App.1995). The trial court's decision on a motion to suppress is reviewed on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Milliorn,......
-
State v. Tyler
...repeatedly been held to be mandatory and constitutional. See White v. State, 939 S.W.2d 887, 904 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Johnson, 907 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Mo.App. E.D. 1995); Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc ...
-
Gunn v. State, 73492
...court. See Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989); State v. Woltering, 810 S.W.2d 584, 589 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Johnson, 907 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Mo.App.1995). The judgment is ...