State v. Jones, WD
| Decision Date | 31 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 652 S.W.2d 880 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, (Respondent), v. Michael P. JONES, (Appellant). 33593. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Anne Hall, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Nancy Kelley Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CLARK, P.J., and DIXON and NUGENT, JJ.
Appellant was charged with the offenses of burglary and stealing and he was convicted by a jury. On this appeal he raises one point in which he contends the trial court erred in denying him the opportunity to impeach a witness for the state through introduction of a prior inconsistent statement. This issue is closely associated with the facts of the case which we recount briefly.
On January 21, 1981, the residence of James Paul was burglarized and a number of items, including a stereo set, were taken. Although the break-in was not discovered until later, it apparently occurred soon after 8:30 a.m. when Paul left his home for the day. At 8:58 a.m., Officer David Williams stopped a 1966 Ford station wagon because the car displayed no license plates. The car was being driven by appellant. Two passengers were in the car, Debbie McCole and Arthur Oliver. The officer observed a number of items in the back of the station wagon including a television and the stereo later found to be the property of Paul taken in the burglary that morning.
After informing appellant he had been stopped for operating a car without license plates, the officer inquired as to who owned the items in the vehicle. Appellant's response was the subject of conflicting evidence. According to Officer Williams, appellant said the articles belonged to Debbie McCole. Appellant's version was that he merely denied ownership himself. Officer Williams then questioned McCole and Oliver separately. Each denied ownership and claimed to know nothing about the vehicle's contents. The officer confronted appellant a second time and according to Williams, appellant then stated that the property was his. By appellant's version of the conversation, he made no such admission.
The circumstances prompted the officer to place a radio call to inquire about property reported stolen, but at this point, the Paul burglary had not yet been reported. Other officers arrived at the scene and by reason of the conflicting statements about ownership of the property, the items were removed from the station wagon and taken for safekeeping. Oliver was placed under arrest because when first questioned by Williams, Oliver had given a false identity. Appellant was released with a ticket for failure to have a vehicle license. After the Paul burglary was discovered later in the day, a warrant was issued and appellant was arrested and charged.
The point on this appeal centers on the testimony given by Officer Williams at a suppression hearing. He there testified that during questioning at the scene where appellant's car had been stopped, Arthur Oliver had himself said he owned the items in question, having made a trade with a friend. It was appellant's contention Williams' testimony at trial was inconsistent when Williams reported it to have been appellant who asserted ownership of the stolen goods. In cross-examination of Williams, defense counsel sought to introduce the suppression hearing testimony as impeachment, but the court sustained the state's objection to this line of inquiry.
In the process of laying a foundation for the impeachment, defense counsel asked Williams if he had earlier testified at the suppression hearing that Arthur Oliver claimed to be the owner of the stereo by reason of having traded an older set. At one point, Williams said he did not recall, at another he said it was possible he had made such a statement and finally, he denied the statement. Each question was in a somewhat different form. The defense later attempted to call, but was denied permission to use the court reporter who recorded the evidence at the suppression hearing and who would have read the testimony from his notes.
From the series of incidents and the trial court's explanation of its rulings, it appears the learned trial judge concluded no impeachment proof could be introduced because Williams did not unequivocally deny having made the prior inconsistent statement. In addition, the judge appears to have ruled that in the absence of a transcript of the prior testimony, the inconsistent statement could not be read by the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...a prior statement was made or not made, a proper foundation has been laid to admit the prior inconsistent statement." State v. Jones, 652 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Mo.App. 1983); Archuleta, 955 S.W.2d at ...
-
Kearbey v. Wichita Southeast Kansas
...if a prior statement was or was not made, a proper foundation has been laid to admit the prior inconsistent statement. State v. Jones, 652 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Mo.App.1983). In one of his first questions to Kearbey on the subject, defense counsel asked, "Now, you'd agree . . ., Mr. Kearbey, tha......
-
State v. Mitchell, 48392
...admission of the prior statement obviates the needs to introduce the statement and, thus, bars its introduction. State v. Jones, 652 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Mo.App.1983). Therefore, if a witness equivocates about a prior statement, counsel may show the witness made a prior inconsistent statement. ......
-
State v. Cravens
...v. Archuleta, 955 S.W.2d 12, 16 (Mo.App.1997). "It is unequivocal admission of the prior statement which bars its use." State v. Jones, 652 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Mo.App.1983). Defendant appears to be arguing that the phrase, "prior statement," as used in these cases, is simply a reference to the......