State v. Liggins
| Decision Date | 20 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 51038,51038 |
| Citation | 725 S.W.2d 75 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alvin O. LIGGINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Anne-Marie Clarke, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Carrie Francke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of second degree murder and sentence of fifty years imprisonment.
The victim, Thomas Davis, arrived at the emergency room of Homer G. Phillips Hospital in St. Louis at 3:56 a.m. September 8, 1984. He had a shotgun wound in his chest and abdomen. He apparently drove himself to the hospital. Prior to 3:30 or 3:45 a.m. on that date he had been engaged in a large stake poker game with defendant and William Yates at defendant's home. Some argument had occurred between defendant and Davis as a result of defendant's accusation that Davis was cheating. All three men had known each other for some period of time and played poker on numerous occasions previously. There was evidence that defendant was the loser in the game. Between 3:30 and 3:45 a.m. when Yates left defendant's home after the game, Davis and defendant were standing outside defendant's residence. Davis died of complications from the shotgun wound on October 12, 1984.
While in Homer G. Phillips hospital prior to transfer to Jewish Hospital, Davis made a statement to a police officer that "Al" had shot him. The officer described Davis at that time as calm and nonchalant. This testimony was subsequently ordered stricken by the trial court and the jury was instructed to disregard it. No other relief was requested. While Davis was still at Phillips, his ex-wife, in whose home he was temporarily residing, and her sister came to the hospital. When the ex-wife approached Davis he became "emotional", "frightened", "nearly hysterical". He stated to her, within hearing of the sister, "Ba,ba, I'm going to die, Ba." "Ba" was Davis' nickname for his ex-wife. He then stated, "Tell Frank Al shot me." Frank Coleman was Yates' brother, Davis' best friend, and acquainted with defendant. Coleman had come by defendant's house during the poker game and remained for a short period of time.
At the conclusion of the state's case the trial court sustained a motion for directed verdict on the charge of capital murder, but denied such motion as to lesser charged crimes.
In his first point on appeal defendant premises error upon the trial court's failure to suppress the testimony of the police officer, the ex-wife, and the sister concerning Davis' statements implicating "Al". The testimony of all three is challenged as hearsay. It is, of course. But as to the ex-wife and sister, it is admissible under the dying declaration exception to that rule. That exception requires that the utterance be made while the declarant believes death is imminent and has abandoned all hope of recovery. State v. Mahone, 699 S.W.2d 60 (Mo.App.1985) [1-5]. It is the impression of almost immediate death rather than the rapid succession of death which renders the statement admissible. State v. Carr, 610 S.W.2d 296 (Mo.App.1980) . The best method of proving the state of mind of declarant, and one frequently not available, is his express statement concerning that state of mind. Id. It would be difficult to find a stronger case for application of the exception. Defendant, in an emotional, nearly hysterical state expressed his belief in his imminent death to a person with whom he had a close personal relationship. He was at the time suffering from a shotgun wound to a vital part of his body so his apprehension was not unreasonable. There was no error in admitting the testimony of the ex-wife and sister.
The police officer's testimony did not meet the required standard as it demonstrated no belief of impending death. But the testimony was stricken and no further relief was requested. Additionally the officer's testimony was clearly cumulative to that of the ex-wife and sister and no prejudicial error arose therefrom. State v. Carr, supra, .
By two points defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of second degree murder. That crime is established by proof that the killing was done by defendant and was unlawful, premeditated, with malice aforethought but without deliberation. State v. Williamson, 657 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1983) [1, 2]. Malice may be presumed from a killing accomplished by use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the body. Id. An assault with a deadly weapon in such a way as will probably or reasonably produce death gives rise to a presumption of intent to kill. State v. Goforth, 535 S.W.2d 464 (Mo.App.1976) [3, 4].
Defendant was in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...that the messages were written while Brandie believed that death was imminent and that she had no hope of recovery. State v. Liggins, 725 S.W.2d 75, 76 (Mo. App. 1987). The state is allowed to demonstrate such a belief "by any means.... It is enough if, from all the circumstances, it satisf......
-
State, v. Smith
...that the messages were written while Brandie believed that death was imminent and that she had no hope of recovery. State v. Liggins, 725 S.W.2d 75, 76 (Mo. App. 1987). The state is allowed to demonstrate such a belief "by any means.... It is enough if, from all the circumstances, it satisf......
-
State v. Hayes
...of almost immediate death rather than the rapid succession of death which renders the statement admissible." State v. Liggins, 725 S.W.2d 75, 76 (Mo.App. E.D.1987). "`It is enough if, from all the circumstances, it satisfactorily appears that such was the condition of the declarant's mind a......
-
State v. Minner
...frequently not available, is his express statement concerning that state of mind.'" Hayes, 88 S.W.3d at 64 (quoting State v. Liggins, 725 S.W.2d 75, 76 (Mo.App. E.D.1987)). The trial court's admission of Hailey's testimony concerning Terry's statement was not an abuse of discretion. The tri......