State v. Knicker

• Decision Date: 28 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 48999,No. 3,48999,3
• Citation: State v. Knicker, 424 S.W.2d 605 (Mo. 1968)
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William Elmer KNICKER, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 605

424 S.W.2d 605

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v.William Elmer KNICKER, Appellant.

No. 48999.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Special Division No. 3.

Feb. 28, 1968.

Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., John H. Denman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Robert L. Schneider and J. Brendan Ryan, St. Louis, for appellant.

SAMUEL E. SEMPLE, Special Judge.

Defendant was charged with the unlawful and felonious possession of certain narcotic drugs.The trial court heard evidence outside the presence of the jury and found that defendant had been previously convicted of four felonies as charged in the information.The jury found the defendant guilty and the court assessed punishment at five years.Thereafter allocution was offered and judgment rendered sentencing defendant to five years in the custody of the State Department of Corrections.Defendant was allowed to appeal as a poor person and filed a brief pro se.This court affirmed the conviction.State v. Knicker, Mo., 364 S.W.2d 544.Thereafter, pursuant to the decision in Bosler v. Swenson, 363 F.2d 154(8th Cir.), this court set aside its judgment affirming the conviction, ordered the cause reinstated on the docket, and ordered the trial court to appoint counsel to represent the defendant on this appeal in accordance with S.Ct. Rule 29.01(c), V.A.M.R.Counsel was appointed for defendant and the case is again submitted.

A brief statement of the evidence is essential to an understanding of the assignments of error made by defendant as to the rulings of the trial court in admitting and refusing to admit evidence.

The State's evidence was that on August 15, 1960, two officers of the St. Louis Police Department were assigned to place under surveillance a 1954 Ford automobile which purportedly was owned by Albert Knicker, brother of defendant, that was parked in the vicinity of 7th and Lynch Streets in St. Louis, Missouri.Defendant, together with his brotherAlbert Knicker, and one Edward Stuckmeyer were observed approaching the car.Defendant was carrying a brown paper bag and when they got to the car, defendant placed the brown paper bag through an open window on the front seat of the car.At this time all three men were arrested.The 1954 Ford was searched and a brown paper bag was found on the front seat.The bag contained four envelopes, fourteen bottles, and $31.95 in silver.A police chemist testified that of the items found in the bag, four contained morphine, two bottles contained codeine, one bottle cocaine, three other bottles contained opium, and another bottle contained stypticin.There were other containers which did not contain narcotics.

Defendant's evidence consisted solely of the testimony of his brotherAlbert Knicker, who testified that the 1954 Ford was his automobile and that he had been in a tavern with his brother(defendant) and Edward Stuckmeyer; that Stuckmeyer had the brown paper bag with him when they met in the tavern and Stuckmeyer carried the bag as they went to the car; that Stuckmeyer placed the bag in the car and that neither he nor defendant knew what was in the bag.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of State's witnesses by sustaining objections to questions as to charges upon which defendant and the other two men were booked.Defendant argues that the court curtailed his right to confront witnesses against him and to cross-examine these witnesses as required by Art. I, § 18 of the Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S., and to support this contention defendant cites several cases which lay down the general rule that a trial judge may not unduly restrain or interfere with a defendant's right to cross-examine an adverse witness.

Defendant apparently contends that the court's rulings prevented him from establishing that at the time defendant was arrested and booked, Edward Stuckmeyer and Albert Knicker were also arrested and booked on the charge of possession of narcotics and Stuckmeyer was then released.Defendant argues that if such line of inquiry had been allowed facts which would have supported his defense that Edward Stuckmeyer was the person actually in possession of the narcotics would have been developed.

The trial court is invested with much discretion in determining the extent of cross-examination.Particularly is this true as to collateral matters.State v. Cox, Mo., 360 S.W.2d 668, 671.It does not appear that the fact that Stuckmeyer was also arrested, booked on a charge of possession of narcotics and then released, would be evidence that Stuckmeyer rather than defendant was in possession of the narcotics, a...