State v. Lee, 56925
| Decision Date | 13 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 56925,56925,2 |
| Citation | 486 S.W.2d 412 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas Jefferson LEE, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
James L. McMullin, Hill & McMullin, Kansas City, for appellant; John J. Cosgrove, Kansas City, of counsel.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
Thomas Jefferson Lee has appealed from a judgment of conviction and sentence to life imprisonment following a jury verdict of guilty of first degree murder. This Court has jurisdiction under § 3, Art. V, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S. as provided by that section prior to the amendment adopted at the special election of August 4, 1970, since the notice of appeal was filed prior to January 1, 1972. Art. V, § 31.
The state charged and introduced evidence that one John Frankoviglia, known as Johnny Franks, devised a scheme to exterminate Sol Landie pursuant to which defendant Lee, acting as in-between man or contact man for Franks, urged Ronnie Williams with the promise of money that Williams and his companions kill Landie; that Williams and three companions executed the commission, and that defendant paid Williams for the deed.
Reversible error was committed in not granting a mistrial when in the opening statement, in the state's case-in-chief, in cross-examining defendant, in presenting rebuttal testimony, and in the opening argument to the jury the prosecuting attorney and his assistant were permitted to develop facts implicating defendant in bombing and other criminal activities not charged in the indictment.
In the opening statement the prosecuting attorney said to the jury, Counsel for defendant moved for a mistrial on the ground that defendant was charged simply with first degree murder; not charged with any other crimes 'and it is absolutely flat-out reversible error to mention other crimes (with) which we are not charged in this indictment * * *.' The motion was overruled.
For the state Ronnie Williams testified that defendant telephoned and asked Williams if he wanted to make $2,000. The prosecuting attorney asked Williams if he had had previous dealings of this kind with defendant, to which Williams responded, 'I have.' To the prosecuting attorney's query 'What kind of dealings?' Williams answered, 'Well, putting bombs different places.' Counsel again moved for a mistrial on the ground that it was inflammatory and prejudicial 'to elicit the obvious answer that (defendant) had allegedly, without proof, engaged in prior bombings' when defendant was charged with murder and not charged with prior crimes of bombing. The court overruled the motion. The witness reiterated, 'It was bomb dealings.' The prosecuting attorney then asked, 'So you had done some work for this defendant before?' A: 'Right.'
During the cross-examination of defendant the assistant prosecuting attorney, referring to Lee's delinquency in making payments on some furniture purchased by Lee from a furniture store operated by 'Big Jim' McDonald and to the repossession of the furniture, asked Lee the following question, 'And about the time that furniture was repossessed, you threatened to bomb his place, didn't you?' When Lee answered 'No, sir,' the assistant prosecuting attorney said, 'Would you stand up, please, Mr. McDonald?' Mr. McDonald, a spectator in the courtroom, arose, whereupon the state's representative asked defendant whether he knew that man. Defendant acknowledged that he knew him and the assistant further queried, 'You never threatened to bomb his place of business?,' to which defendant answered, 'No, sir, I did not.' In rebuttal the state placed Mr. McDonald on the stand and after it was brought out that immediately before or about the time the furniture was repossessed Mr. McDonald had contacted defendant in an effort to collect the debt, the following appears of record: The state further developed that Johnny Franks later approached Mr. McDonald, accompanied by defendant, and Franks said he or they could stop the bombings if Mr. McDonald wanted to pay two thousand dollars; that he knew who was doing it.
In opening argument the assistant referred to the participants in this crime as persons who live and prey on weak members of the community and who 'live by bombing, by arson, by burglary, by all manner of crime, including murder.'
There is nothing in the record to indicate that these allusions to bombings and other crimes were admissible under any of the well-known exceptions to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hamell
...was of other crimes or offenses. When compared with these cases the reference in this case does appear generalized. In State v. Lee, 486 S.W.2d 412 (Mo.1972), the Missouri Supreme Court held that denial of a mistrial was reversible error where the prosecutor implicated the defendant in bomb......
-
State v. Granberry
...be fairly tried on the offense for which he is charged.' State v. McElroy, 518 S.W.2d 459, 460--461 (Mo.App.1975). See also State v. Lee, 486 S.W.2d 412 (Mo.1972). But evidence concerning separate and distinct crimes can be admissible when it tends to prove or establish: 1) motive; 2) inten......
-
State v. Woods
...Wilmoth v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. Co., 486 S.W.2d 631 (Mo.1972); State v. McKnight, 486 S.W.2d 415 (Mo.1972); State v. Lee, 486 S.W.2d 412 (Mo.1972); State v. Williams, 486 S.W.2d 221 (Mo.1972); Colbert v. State, 486 S.W.2d 219 (Mo.1972); Patton v. State, 486 S.W.2d 204 (Mo.197......
-
State v. Mullen
...issue. State v. Johnson, 456 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.1970); State v. Aubuchon, supra; State v. Fenton, 499 S.W.2d 813 (Mo.App.1973). Cf. State v. Lee, 486 S.W.2d 412 (Mo.1972); State v. Robb, 439 S.W.2d 510 (Mo.1970) and State v. Holbert, 416 S.W.2d 129 Those two factors are not present in this case. ......