State v. Johnson, 56575
| Decision Date | 22 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56575,No. 1,56575,1 |
| Citation | 476 S.W.2d 516 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert Lee JOHNSON, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
James C. Jones, III, St. Louis, for appellant.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Robert Lee Johnson, charged with murder, first degree, was convicted by a jury which assessed his punishment at life imprisonment. Sentence and judgment were rendered accordingly. §§ 559.010, 559.030, V.A.M.S.
On May 23, 1968, at 8:30 p.m., Robert Lee Johnson, Glenn Valentine and Michael Lee Quinn entered the Travis Confectionary at Webster and Thomas Streets, St. Louis, Missouri, to rob Sam Travis. A 'scuffle' ensued between Mr. Travis, defendant, and Quinn, and several shots were fired. Defendant and his companions fled; and, at 9:00 p.m., Sam Travis was pronounced dead from gunshot wounds. The defense was alibi. Upon prior appeal, appellant tacitly conceded the state made a submissible case against him; the court demonstrated a submissible case of murder, first degree, as charged; and appellant now concedes 'the evidence was substantially the same as in the first case.' Accordingly, a submissible case of murder, first degree, as charged, is found. State v. Johnson, Mo., 456 S.W.2d 1. See also State v. Quinn, Mo., 461 S.W.2d 812.
As in the first trial, a letter, containing incriminating admissions, written by defendant while confined in jail awaiting trial, was admitted in evidence. The letter was intercepted, pursuant to written authority given by defendant, by jail officials pursuant to jail censorship regulations which has as their purpose protection of physical security of the jail, forestalling escapes, and barring narcotics and other contraband. In both trials, defendant moved to suppress the letter and objected ot its admission in evidence on grounds of unconstitutional search and seizure and violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. Upon the first appeal the letter was found to be generally admissible, contrary to such attacks; but admission of that portion of the letter concerning the outcome of codefendant Quinn's trial and counsel's appraisal of what would likely happen in this case was held erroneous. State v. Johnson, supra, 456 S.W.2d l.c. 4(3). Consequently, a new trial was ordered and, upon this trial, the letter was admitted with the portions previously held objectionable deleted.
The letter follows, with portions found objectionable on the first appeal and deleted on this trial enclosed in parentheses:
'Dear Dent
Appellant contends the court erred in admitting the letter, as modified by deletions, Exhibit 5, because:
I. '* * * interception and confiscation of this letter by officials of the jail constituted an unreasonable search and seizure * * *.'
II. '* * * this evidence violated defendant's privilege against self-incrimination * * *.'
III. '* * * this evidence deprived defendant of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment * * * defendant had not been convicted of any crime, * * * he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burnett
...A.2d 835 (2003) (pretrial detainee had no reasonable expectation of privacy after being informed mail would be read); State v. Johnson, 476 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo.1972) (no unreasonable search or seizure occurred when letter composed by defendant while in jail and awaiting trial was admitted i......
-
State v. Jeffers, 4253
...654, 538 P.2d 637 (1975); Thomas v. State, 39 Md.App. 217, 384 A.2d 772 (1978), aff'd, 285 Md. 458, 404 A.2d 257 (1979); State v. Johnson, 476 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 144, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972); Hicks v. State, 480 S.W.2d 357 (Tenn.Cr.App.1972); State v. C......
-
People v. Oliver
...F.2d 329 (CA 10, 1970); State v. McCoy, Or., 527 P.2d 725 (1974); Hicks v. Tennessee, 480 S.W.2d 357 (Tenn.Cr.App., 1972); State v. Johnson, 476 S.W.2d 516 (Mo., 1972), Cert. den. 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 144, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972).See also, Censorship and Evidentiary Use of Unconvicted Priso......
-
People v. Reddock
...251 U.S. at 21--22, 40 S.Ct. at 53. Stroud is still the law today and has been followed in several decisions. In State v. Johnson, 476 S.W.2d 516 (S.Ct.Mo.1972), cert. den., 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 144, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972) (a restatement of the rationale of State v. Johnson, 456 S.W.2d 1 (......