State v. Jones, 36068
| Citation | 528 S.W.2d 14 |
| Decision Date | 16 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 36068,36068 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ricky JONES, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Charles D. Kitchin, Public Defender, Frederick R. Buckles, James C. Jones, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, John D. Ashcroft, Asst. Atty. Gen., Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., Thomas C. Muldoon, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant was convicted of robbery first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, §§ 560.120 and 560.135 RSMo 1969, and was sentenced under the Second Offender Act, § 556.280 RSMo 1969, to 25 years in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections. Defendant on appeal challenges the ruling of the trial court denying his motion to suppress the lineup identification for the reason that his request for counsel was not honored and because the lineup was conducted in an unduly suggestive manner. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and disregarding evidence and the inferences which might be drawn therefrom contrary to the jury verdict, State v. Stapleton, 518 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. banc 1975), the jury, from the evidence adduced at trial, could find that on July 18, 1973, the defendant and three other black men robbed the Speckart Drug Store situated at 5000 N. Broadway in the City of St. Louis, obtaining $1,500.00 in cash and some personal property. Defendant was identified at trial as one of the men who held a sawed-off shot gun at the head of the pharmacist threatening to blow off the pharmacist's head while two other men took money from the cash register and a metal locker in the drug store. Personal property, such as wallets and watches, were taken from several employees of the drug store who were present at the time the robbery took place. The fourth participant in the crime acted as a look-out. When the men had obtained the money and property they fled on foot. Defendant's defense was alibi. His arrest was effected three days following the robbery when he, his brother and two others were seen entering an automobile which fled from the location at which it had been parked, and, after a chase during which a gun was thrown from the car, the four men were placed under arrest. Approximately one to one and a half hours later the four suspects were placed in a lineup at the Fifth District Police Station where defendant was identified as one of those who had participated in the robbery of Speckart's Drug Store on July 18, 1973. 1 Prior to the lineup this defendant requested the presence of a lawyer at the lineup but his request was denied.
Defendant's first Point Relied On was not raised in his motion for new trial and therefore was not preserved for review in this Court, Rule 27.20. However, the law of this State is that the presence of counsel is not required at a pre-indictment lineup, State v. Hamilton, 490 S.W.2d 96, 97(1) (Mo.1973), and the United States Supreme Court in Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972) held that a police station 'show-up' which took place after the petitioner's arrest but before he had been indicted or otherwise formally charged was not a critical stage at which the petitioner had a constitutional right to counsel, and that the victim's testimony at trial describing his 'show-up' identification of the defendant who was unrepresented by counsel at the 'show-up' was admissible in evidence. The 'show-up' in this case took place prior to the filing of any charges against the defendant and was not therefore a critical stage of the criminal proceedings at which the defendant was entitled to counsel. We rule this Point against the defendant.
Defendant's final Point is that the trial court erred in denying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris, 39102
...of the confrontation itself is enough to overcome a claim of unnecessary suggestiveness in the identification procedure. State v. Jones, 528 S.W.2d 14 (Mo.App.1975). We turn first, therefore, to an examination of the procedure employed in this case. Appellant specifically points out three c......
-
State v. Bivens
...great nor obvious and affords no basis for relief for defendant. See State v. Proctor,535 S.W.2d 141 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Jones, 528 S.W.2d 14 (Mo.App.1975). Mere showing of minor dissimilarities in physical appearance of lineup participants is insufficient to establish impermissible sug......
-
State v. Cole
...the certainty of the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. State v. Jones, 528 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Mo.App.1975). Here the witness was certain and the time period very short. Although defendant's face was covered during the crime, the lighti......
-
State v. Adail, 37479
...man, not by two men, as the other witnesses were. That all four men were suspects also does not indicate suggestiveness. State v. Jones, 528 S.W.2d 14 (Mo.App.1975). It appears from the record that one man was not identified by anyone, defendant was identified by only one witness whom he ha......