State v. Knighton

• Decision Date: 24 January 1975
• Docket Number: No. 9705,9705
• Citation: 518 S.W.2d 674
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert Wesley KNIGHTON, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 674

518 S.W.2d 674

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert Wesley KNIGHTON, Appellant.

No. 9705.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

Jan. 24, 1975.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

John B. Newberry, Springfield, for appellant.

Before BILLINGS, C.J., and TITUS and FLANIGAN, JJ.

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

A jury found defendant Robert Wesley Knighton guilty of three counts of kidnapping (§ 559.240, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.). The court, having determined that the Second Offender Act (§ 225.280, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.) was applicable by reason of the defendant's 1968 robbery conviction, assessed punishment of three consecutive ten-year sentences. We affirm.

In this appeal the defendant has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the three convictions and, additionally, alleges prosecutorial misconduct and error in the admission of certain evidence. Since the latter assignments are interrelated to the facts and inferences relied upon by the state to support the convictions, it is necessary that we detail the facts giving rise to the defendant's multiple count prosecution for kidnapping. In so doing, we adhere to the well-established principle of judicial review of criminal convictions that we consider the evidence and inferences most favorable to the guilty verdicts and disregard any evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Strong, 484 S.W.2d 657 (Mo.1972); State v. Jones, 518 S.W.2d 304 (Mo.App.1975).

During the afternoon of September 15, 1973, Claude Day and his son Coffier were at their Springfield residence when the defendant came to see Coffier Day. A short time later the elder Day was wounded in the neck and his son was mortally wounded by pistol shots fired by the defendant. ¹ Immediately following the shootings the defendant left the Day house afoot and went to the Charles Jarrett residence some two blocks away. He attempted to drive away from the vicinity in an older model automobile that was parked in the front yard of the Jarrett home and bore a 'for sale' sign, but he was unable to start the vehicle since the battery had been removed.

The Jarrett family, consisting of Mr. Jarrett, Mrs. Jarrett and six-year-old Traci, was away from their home attending a neighborhood sale at the time of the shootings at the Day residence. About four o'clock the father and daughter returned home in Mr. Jarrett's pick-up truck and entered the house. As they neared a rear bedroom the defendant emerged from that room brandishing a pistol. The defendant warned Mr. Jarrett to not get excited, that 'I've killed four people in the last two weeks,' and 'I just killed two.'

Mrs. Jarrett arrived home in the family automobile a short time later and entered the house. She too was confronted by the gun-wielding defendant. The defendant told the Jarretts he 'needed to get away and if (the Jarretts) tried to run or do anything he would kill them and (Traci) would be the first to be killed.' The defendant placed his hand on the child's head while pointing the postol at the back of her head and asked her parents if they 'had ever seen what one of these will do?' He told the Jarretts: 'I can get any of you faster than you can run.'

The defendant ordered the radio and television turned on so he could hear the newscasts of the Day shootings. When it was initially reported that one of the Days had died and one had not, the defendant stated he would have to go back and get the other one. However, a later news report identified the dead man as Coffier Day, and with this information the defendant then told the Jarretts that the one he 'wanted' and died; that he had wanted to kill (Coffier Day) since 1968 because Coffier Day 'had told on him or got him set up when (defendant) went to the penitentiary.' The defendant also admonished the Jarretts not to address him as 'sir' because that term reminded him of the penitentiary. The defendant also mentioned that he had recently committed a robbery in the neighborhood.

At the defendant's direction and at gunpoint Mrs. Jarrett telephoned her employer to inform him she could not report to work at five o'clock. When several prospective purchasers of the old model car came to the Jarrett door to make inquiry about the vehicle, the defendant kept his weapon trained on Mr. Jarrett. By telephone the defendant talked to a person he called 'Francis' and sought directions to the latter's place, advising 'Francis' that he had three hostages and wanted to come out 'there.'

The defendant continued to hold the Jarrett family at gunpoint at their home until sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. He put on some of Mr. Jarrett's clothing and a short wig belonging to Mrs. Jarrett and then forced Mr. Jarrett to take a quantity of pills he described as ones he took to 'keep from killing people.' The medication caused Mr. Jarrett to become 'groggy.'

The defendant and the Jarrett family left the home in the Jarrett automobile with the defendant driving. The child was in the front seat between the defendant and her mother, and pursuant to the defendant's directions Mr. Jarrett lay down on the back seat. The defendant's pistol was stuck in his belt.

Before the car left Springfield the defendant stopped at a service station for gas, after first ordering Mr. Jarrett to 'get up . . . because (defendant) didn't want anybody to see (Mr. Jarrett) lying down.' At this stop the defendant ordered Mr. Jarrett to go to a nearby liquor store and purchase some beer. Mr. Jarrett did so while his wife and daughter remained in the car with the defendant. Mr. Jarrett made no attempt to notify the authorities because of the defendant's statements that if the police came 'he would have a shoot-out and Traci would be the first one to go if anything went wrong.'

The defendant drove the car to near Marshfield, Missouri, where he stopped at another service station for the purpose of getting further instructions from 'Francis' on the route to 'Francis" place. On this occasion the defendant had Mr. Jarrett remain in the car while he took Mrs. Jarrett and Traci with him to the telephone booth.

A few miles further down the highway the defendant drove the car onto a dirt road which ultimately led to a farmhouse where 'Francis' was located. As the car passed an oncoming truck the defendant asked the Jarretts if 'it would excite Traci too much if (defendant) killed this guy (the truck driver).' Another time the defendant exclaimed: 'I'd like to just stop and shoot a bunch of people.' When the car arrived at the farmhouse the defendant told 'Francis' that Mrs. Jarrett was 'the girl I dated for six years before I went to the penitentiary,' and that she had married while defendant was in the penitentiary--all of which was untrue.

At the farmhouse the defendant, 'Francis' and the Jarrett family wre joined by a man called 'Big J.'. The progress of the police search for the defendant was followed on a radio that scans police frequencies. The defendant, 'Francis', and 'Big J.' engaged in conversations concerning the Day shootings, weapons, money, and what was going to be done with the Jarretts. After several hours, and after the defendant obtained a shotgun and another pistol, the defendant had the Jarrett family get into the automobile and drove to a cafe located at Rolla, Missouri. The child was left asleep in the back seat of the car, and the defendant and Mr. and Mrs. Jarrett entered the eating establishment. Mrs. Jarrett tipped off a waitress as to her family's plight and asked for help when she made a proposed assault on the defendant with a steak knife. The assault followed, and with the assistance of others the defendant was disarmed and held until police arrived.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Jarrett testified that they never at any time voluntarily accompanied the defendant, but that going with the defendant was coerced and induced by the defendant's threats upon their lives and the life of their daughter.

The defendant offered no evidence.

The statute under which the defendant was prosecuted is § 559.240, RSMo 1969. Paragraph 1 provides: 'If any person shall, willfully and without lawful authority, forcibly seize, confine, inveigle, decoy or kidnap any person, with intent to cause such person to be sent or taken out of this state, or to be secretly confined within the same against his will, or shall forcibly carry or send such person out of this state against his will, he shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding ten years.' ²

In support of his contention that the state's evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts, and therefore the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case, the defendant advances two arguments. First, he says, Mr. Jarrett was not forcibly seized and kidnapped because he volunteered and consented to accompany his wife and daughter with the defendant. Secondly, he urges that the evidence failed to show the Jarretts were secretly confined within the state because they were taken to two service stations and a cafe.

The defendant's contention in regard to Mr. Jarrett ignores the positive testimony of Mr. Jarrett that he did not voluntarily consent to accompany the defendant. A consent induced by fear of personal violence is no consent. State v. Schuster, 282 S.W.2d 553 (Mo.1955). And here, the defendant had threatened the lives of Mr. Jarrett, Mrs. Jarrett and Traci. He advised 'Francis' that he had 'three hostages'. The defendant's subsequent equivocation as to which members of the family he would take with him in his flight does not alter the fact of forcible seizure ³ of Mr. Jarrett or his understandable fears for the lives and safety of his wife and daughter. We also observe that in the instructions the state assumed an undue burden in requiring the jury to find that the defendant 'forcibly seized and...