State v. Lay
| Decision Date | 08 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 52817,No. 1,52817,1 |
| Citation | 427 S.W.2d 394 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Walter Victor LAY, Jr., Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, James J. Sauter, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
William Barton, Jefferson City, for appellant.
Defendant, charged by information with second degree murder, 1 was found guilty by a jury and his punishment assessed at imprisonment for a term of ten years. His motion for new trial was overruled and judgment was entered sentencing him in accordance with the verdict. He appeals from that judgment. We affirm.
Deceased, Ralph Hutt, met his death on the night of February 28, 1966, as the result of a stab wound inflicted by his friend, the defendant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Lay), during their 'scuffle' in the 400 block on the south side of East High street in Jefferson City. Both were negro students at Lincoln University; they had been roommates during the first semester of the 1964--65 school year; they were living in the same dormitory in February, 1966, but were not roommates. Finishing their studies shortly before 6:00 p.m., they decided to walk to the downtown area to '* * * shoot a few games of pool * * *,' agreeing to wager twenty-five cents on each game; en route, they stopped at a store where defendant purchased a pocket knife 'for protection * * *' in the event of a continuation of '* * * difficulties between the fellows on the hill and the 'foot'.' 2 They played several games of pool at the Capital Bar and Billiards, defendant winning most of the games and, of course, the money; Hutt expressed the need to purchase socks before the stores closed so they walked to one nearby; they returned to the pool room, '* * * shot a couple more games, * * *' then left to return to the campus. They walked east on the south side of High street, defendant on Hutt's right side. After passing the Missouri Hotel at 400 East High, defendant began 'teasing' Hutt about losing the pool games; during this 'teasing,' Hutt '* * * pulled his hand from his pocket and flicked (defendant) on the cheek with his fingernail. * * *' Defendant said he thought the 'flick' was from a straightedge razor he had last seen in Hutt's possession about a year before. This incident led immediately to the 'scuffle,' about which defendant testified:
Immediately after defendant stabbed Hutt, he threw the knife to the ground, opened Hutt's coat and tried unsuccessfully to stop the bleeding; telling Hutt to remain still he went from door to door trying in vain to get help, but Hutt followed him and fell in the street. Defendant picked him up and carried him to a spot between the sidewalk and curb near the Missouri Council of Churches' office building, on the north side of High street. At this point defendant saw a man leaving the office building and called to him for help, saying '* * * this boy was bleeding.' This person returned to the building and within a few minutes an ambulance arrived. In the meantime, police arrived on the scene, responding to a call that a man '* * * was bleeding to death * * * in the 400 of High Street.'
Officer Bob Roark testified that when he arrived at the scene a crowd was around Hutt, including other police officers, Lay, and a doctor who was administering aid to Hutt; that as he walked through the crowd he asked, not directing his question to anyone in particular: 'What happened?'; that Lay, who was bending over Hutt, spoke up, saying: 'Me and my friend were walking down the street, across the street on the sidewalk, and a white (boy or man) come up and stabbed my friend * * *;' that Lay described Hutt's assailant as wearing '* * * white pants and a black trench coat * * *,' and that he was '* * * blond-headed * * *.'
Officer Wyman Basigner testified that he was one of three other officers who responded to this call; that the call was received at the police station shortly after 9:00 p.m., and they left for the scene immediately; that Lay was there and '* * * flagged us down * * *;' that Hutt was still alive, moaning; that an ambulance arrived shortly and he and Lay (without being asked to do so) got in the ambulance with Hutt for the trip to Charles Still Hospital; that en route to the hospital he asked Lay '* * * if he saw who did it * * *' and received the reply that '* * * it was a white boy * * *' wearing '* * * white trousers and a dark coat * * *;' that within a few minutes after arrival at theh ospital a few minutes after arrival at the hospital him (Hutt) dead * * *;' that he '* * * asked him (Lay) if he wanted to ride back downtown and come down to the station to identify anybody that we brought in * * *;' that Lay indicated that '* * * he wanted to help identify and get the man who stabbed his buddy * * *,' and went with the officer to the police station for that purpose; that Lay was obviously upset, nervous, and crying somewhat, both at the hospital and later at the police station; that at no time, either at the hospital or the police station was Lay under suspicion, nor did anyone have any reason to suspect or restrain him, and he was not restrained or suspected; that in fact the officers recognized the shocking ordeal Lay had been through in seeing his friend stabbed to death and showed their sympathy for him by making him as comfortable as possible during the night as individual suspects were brought in for identification by him.
During the course of the night, between approximately 10:30 p.m. on the 28th and 3:00 a.m. on March 1st, ten suspects were picked up and brought to the police station; the tenth person, a 15 year old white youth, met the description exactly and was positively identified by Lay as Hutt's assailant. Through these hours Lay was in the role of assisting the police and no questions were addressed to him, except those pertaining to description of the assailant before the first suspect was picked up, and as each suspect was brought in. As stated by the officers, he was never during all this time under any suspicion and, of course, he was not under arrest or restrained.
Clarence Mack, a negro police officer, testified that at about 3:30 a.m., he and Lay were in the radio dispatcher's room; that '* * * he (Lay) walked out and, I believe lit a cigarette and he beckoned for me to come to him, and I walked over * * *;' that Lay asked: 'What are they going to do about this * * *'; that he (Mack) said: '* * * they are making every effort * * * and * * * they'll have him by morning * * *;' that Lay then said: 'I tell you, * * * '(M)y prints were on that knife * * *;" that he (Mack) asked: '* * * Your prints are on the knife?'; and, 'Did you tell them your prints were on the knife?'; that he (Mack) asked him (Lay), '(D)id he want to tell Captain Dickson about it, and he said, 'Yes' * * *;' that he (Mack) knocked on Captain Dickson's door and '* * * Lay told him (Dickson) he wanted to talk to him, by himself;' that Captain Dickson invited Lay in, excused all others from the room, and asked him to be seated. Lay then told Captain Dickson that his fingerprints were probably on the knife and, later '* * * I'm the one that stabbed Ralph Hutt.' More about this later.
The first six of the fourteen points briefed by defendant may be summarized as follows: That the court erred in admitting in evidence oral and written statement or confessions made by defendant to the police while in custody in the police station, because the police failed to warn him of all his constitutional rights and afford him the opportunity to exercise those rights before subjecting him to questioning as required by Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630(66, 67), 16 L.Ed.2d 694. 4
The court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of defendant's admissions and confessions. At this hearing Captain Walter Dickson testified that when Officer Clarence Mack and Lay appeared at his office door at about 3:30 a.m. and Mack stated, '* * * Walter's got something he wants to tell you * * * that his fingerprints could be on that knife * * *,' he (Dickson), for the first time, suspected that defendant was Hutt's assailant; that before that moment neither he nor any of the other officers suspected or had reason to suspect defendant; that up to that moment the only purpose of questions asked of Lay was to secure an accurate description of the 'young man' Lay said had walked up, stabbed his friend, Hutt, and had '* * * broke and ran down the street, headed west * * *;' that the point of view and demeanor of all those present at the police station that night, both the police and Lay, was that '* * * We were working hand in hand, he was just helping us out.' Captain Dickson further testified that when Lay walked in and sat down he (Dickson) said: '* * * I think Walter, I know what you are going to tell me and, before you tell me, before you say anything, I want to advise you of your rights. * * * 'There is a telephone, Son, if you want to call anyone. Call your mother, father, friend, or anyone from the faculty, and, if you haven't got the money, the Police Department will pay for the long distance call * * *;" that defendant indicated he did not want to call anyone, saying: 'No, not right now.' Captain Dickson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Warters
...in any event not an unpermitted comment on evidence, not prejudicial and certainly not an invasion of constitutional rights. State v. Lay, Mo., 427 S.W.2d 394. Throughout the trial his hired trial counsel (now deceased) and his present lawyer have insisted, often mistaking the appropriate c......
-
State v. Howard, s. 18265
...banc 1993). We also presume that the jury understood the words used in the instructions when they arrive at their verdict. State v. Lay, 427 S.W.2d 394, 400 (Mo.1968). Upon this record, we see little potential for the jury being misdirected sufficiently to cause a miscarriage of justice whe......
-
State v. Tyler
...required an objection at the time it occurred if it did occur, and absent objection it has not been preserved for review. State v. Lay, Mo., 427 S.W.2d 394, 403(9); State v. Anderson, Mo., 375 S.W.2d 116, 120(10); State v. Selle, Mo., 367 S.W.2d 522, 527(6, 7). See also State v. McKeever, 3......
-
State v. Lee, 63296
...of the mind which prompts a person intentionally to take the life of another without just cause, justification or excuse," State v. Lay, 427 S.W.2d 394, 400 (Mo.1968); see State v. Wieners, 66 Mo. 13, 20 (1877), and "malice aforethought" means "with malice and premeditation," State v. Curti......
-
Section 9.23 Examination by Judge
...State v. Clark, 522 S.W.2d 332, 334–35 (Mo. App. E.D. 1975). The questioning must be done in a fair and impartial manner. State v. Lay, 427 S.W.2d 394, 403 (Mo. 1968). The court’s decision to question a witness will not be disturbed unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or impairs th......