State v. Laws, No. 18384
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | MONTGOMERY |
| Citation | 854 S.W.2d 633 |
| Docket Number | No. 18384 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1993 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy R. LAWS, Appellant. |
Page 633
v.
Timothy R. LAWS, Appellant.
Southern District,
Division Two.
Page 635
Gary E. Brotherton, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David B. Cosgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge.
A jury found Timothy R. Laws (Defendant) guilty of the class C felony of forgery, in violation of § 570.090.1(1), RSMo 1986. He was sentenced as a prior offender to five years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Defendant claims the trial court plainly erred (1) in failing to exclude his in-court identification; (2) in failing to declare a mistrial, sua sponte, after the prosecutor argued in closing that no evidence contradicted the testimony of two state witnesses; and (3) by submitting Instruction No. 4, patterned after MAI-CR 3d 302.04, defining "reasonable doubt." Finding no merit to these points, we affirm.
The facts favorable to the verdict show the following: On March 22, 1992, Jeff Mobley was working the "graveyard" shift at a convenience store in Carthage, Missouri. During his shift, Defendant entered the store, identified himself as Jack Thorn, and cashed a payroll check for $150 drawn on the account of Oasis Cartage and Truck Service. Defendant purchased cigarettes when the check was cashed. During this transaction, Mobley viewed Defendant from a distance of two feet for about three minutes in a well-lighted area of the store.
About one month later Mobley told the police he was not sure he could identify the perpetrator. Mobley next saw Defendant at the preliminary hearing and identified him as the person passing the check.
At trial, Mobley admitted Defendant was the only person in an orange "jail suit" at the preliminary hearing and that "could have" influenced his identification. However, Mobley added that his in-court identification was not based on Defendant's appearance at the preliminary hearing. Mobley testified he was "absolutely sure" Defendant was the person who passed the check.
John Morgan, former owner of Oasis Cartage and Truck Service, identified the check as a company check. The account had been closed for about six months. Only Morgan and his mother were authorized to sign company checks, and neither of them signed the check in question nor gave Defendant permission to do so. Morgan related that Defendant worked for him when nine of his company checks were stolen and later Defendant admitted to Morgan that he stole the checks.
All of Defendant's three points relied on request plain error relief. Under Rule 30.20, this Court has the discretion to review for plain errors affecting substantial rights. Such relief is warranted only when the alleged error so substantially affects the rights of the accused that a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice inexorably results if left uncorrected. State v. Hadley, 815 S.W.2d 422, 423 (Mo. banc 1991). Defendant bears the burden of establishing manifest injustice. State v. Cline, 808 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Mo. banc 1991). The determination of whether plain error exists must be based on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. Id.
With these principles in mind, we turn to each of Defendant's contentions. The first point avers the trial court should have suppressed Jeff Mobley's in-court identification of Defendant since it was tainted by Mobley's prior identification of Defendant in an orange jail suit at the preliminary hearing. Defendant did not move to suppress Mobley's identification nor did he object to the evidence at trial.
An eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification will violate a defendant's right to due process only if the pretrial identification is so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a
Page 636
very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. State v. Cooper, 691 S.W.2d 353, 355...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DeJournett, Nos. 16717
...An accused bears the burden of establishing manifest injustice. State v. Cline, 808 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Mo. banc 1991); State v. Laws, 854 S.W.2d 633, 635 (Mo.App.1993). "The determination of whether plain error exists must be based on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of each cas......
-
State v. Dees, Nos. WD
...equivalent. State v. Lawhorn, 762 S.W.2d 820, 826 (Mo. banc 1988); State v. Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Laws, 854 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Mo.App.1993). That is exactly what occurred here. Here, however, defense counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's comment, and t......
-
State v. Lopez, Nos. WD
...did it.' " A prosecutor is prohibited from making either direct or indirect references to an accused's failure to testify. State v. Laws, 854 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Mo.App.1993). A direct reference is made when the prosecutor uses words such as "defendant," "accused," and "testify" or their equiv......
-
State v. Cross, Nos. WD
...evidence" presented on a particular issue is neither a direct nor indirect reference to the accused's failure to testify. State v. Laws, 854 S.W.2d 633, 636-637 (Mo.App.1993). In the case at bar, the prosecutor's "no evidence" comment was a permissible discussion of the evidence, especially......
-
State v. DeJournett, Nos. 16717
...An accused bears the burden of establishing manifest injustice. State v. Cline, 808 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Mo. banc 1991); State v. Laws, 854 S.W.2d 633, 635 (Mo.App.1993). "The determination of whether plain error exists must be based on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of each cas......
-
State v. Dees, Nos. WD
...equivalent. State v. Lawhorn, 762 S.W.2d 820, 826 (Mo. banc 1988); State v. Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Laws, 854 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Mo.App.1993). That is exactly what occurred here. Here, however, defense counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's comment, and t......
-
State v. Lopez, Nos. WD
...did it.' " A prosecutor is prohibited from making either direct or indirect references to an accused's failure to testify. State v. Laws, 854 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Mo.App.1993). A direct reference is made when the prosecutor uses words such as "defendant," "accused," and "testify" or their equiv......
-
State v. Cross, Nos. WD
...evidence" presented on a particular issue is neither a direct nor indirect reference to the accused's failure to testify. State v. Laws, 854 S.W.2d 633, 636-637 (Mo.App.1993). In the case at bar, the prosecutor's "no evidence" comment was a permissible discussion of the evidence, especially......