State v. Joiner, 38573
| Decision Date | 25 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 38573,38573 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Loal Junior JOINER, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Welman, Beaton & Sharp, Kennett, for defendant-appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul R. Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles H. Baker, Pros. Atty., Kennett, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals his conviction and life sentence for the first degree murder of John Holder. We affirm.
No question is raised of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. There was evidence to support a finding that defendant and others attempted to rob Holder at his liquor store; that Holder resisted and was shot to death by defendant. There was evidence by defendant that he sought only to buy liquor from Holder; that Holder refused because defendant was intoxicated; that Holder drew a pistol; that defendant was carrying a pistol; that a fight ensued and a gun discharged killing Holder. An instruction on self-defense was given to the jury.
Defendant's first point is that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of his confession on the basis that the confession was not voluntary. Since the confession was made while defendant was in custody, the burden was upon the State to show that the confession was voluntary. State v. Nolan, 423 S.W.2d 815 (Mo.1968) (5-9). It is unnecessary for us to set forth in detail the evidence before the trial court at the hearing on voluntariness. Suffice it to say that the State's evidence, if believed, warranted a finding that defendant was advised of his rights and that no force, threats or promises were employed in obtaining the confession. Defendant's evidence was conflicting to that of the state. The credibility of the witnesses was for the trial court to determine. State v. Anderson, 384 S.W.2d 591 (Mo. banc 1964) (23). We cannot find manifest error in the determination of the trial court nor find that the evidence conclusively establishes the involuntariness of the confession. State v. Garrett, 510 S.W.2d 853 (Mo.App.1974) (2-4).
Defendant's second point is that the court erred in admitting into evidence statements made by a co-participant in the crime. Defendant contends these were hearsay and denied him the right of confrontation. The testimony of the police officers who testified to these statements was that the statements were made in the presence of defendant and that defendant affirmatively adopted the statements by either nodding or stating the statements were correct when queried by the officers if "that was the way it happened." Under those circumstances the statements were admissible. Defendant did not simply remain silent while the statements were being made, but affirmatively adopted them as his own. They became his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Corkins
...in excluding it. State v. Feger, 340 S.W.2d 716, 725-726 (Mo.1960); State v. Rose, 249 S.W.2d 324, 333 (Mo. banc 1952); State v. Joiner, 559 S.W.2d 226 (Mo.App.1977). Defendant complains that the court excluded evidence that he had been in military service. That testimony, however, was not ......
-
State v. Laws, 46900
...as his own. That is an explicit admission like any other ..." McCormick on Evidence § 269 (2d Ed.1972); see also State v. Joiner, 559 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Mo.App.1977). "Admissions by a party opponent are admissible either as an exception to the hearsay rule or because such admissions are not c......
-
Joiner v. State
...a jury of murder and sentenced by Judge Stanley A. Grimm to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on appeal in State v. Joiner, 559 S.W.2d 226 (Mo.App.1977). The denial of a writ of habeas corpus in which movant challenged his conviction was affirmed in Joiner v. Wyrich, 591 F.2d 6......
-
State v. Thurman, 48600
...(Mo.App.1983). "Whether evidence is too remote to be material is largely a matter of discretion for the trial court." State v. Joiner, 559 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Mo.App.1977). Here, because the circumstances of the Oklahoma offense were similar to those of the offenses charged here, the trial cou......