State v. Little
| Decision Date | 31 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 107404,ED 107404 |
| Citation | 604 S.W.3d 708 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Harry LITTLE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
For Appellant: Kristina S. Olson, 1010 Market St., Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.
For Respondent: Nathan J. Aquino, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.
Harry Little ("Little") appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered after a bench trial finding him guilty of murder in the second degree, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Little raises three points on appeal. In his first two points, Little argues the trial court clearly erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police and his motion to suppress various evidence seized without a search warrant or Little's consent. In his final point, Little challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. Because we find that any error in admitting Little's statements into evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no error in denying the motion to suppress evidence, and that sufficient evidence was adduced to sustain Little's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, we deny all three points and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On the morning of November 14, 2014, Officers Erich Vonnida ("Officer Vonnida") and Carl Whittaker (collectively, "the Officers") were dispatched to a residence in St. Louis City in response to a call from Little reporting that he had found a woman dead ("Victim") in his backyard. The Officers initially responded to the rear of the residence. Little was standing inside the gated backyard and allowed the Officers entry into the yard. Victim's body was covered by a blanket. Little said that he had covered up Victim's body. Little also told the Officers that he had overdosed the previous evening and could not recall what had happened. The Officers observed that Victim was dead and contacted emergency medical services. The Officers waited with Little in the backyard while waiting for emergency medical services and other officers to respond to the scene.
While the Officers and Little were waiting, Little wanted to go inside because it was cold. Little went into the residence and let the Officers in behind him. The Officers observed a blood stain and a knife on the floor. Little remarked that there must have been a struggle. The Officers had Little sit down, handcuffed him, and then performed a protective sweep of the residence.
Police officers took Little to the police station, placed Little in a chair in an interrogation room, and handcuffed him to the floor. During this time, police officers searched and seized evidence from Little's residence. Approximately two hours later, Detective Amy Funk ("Detective Funk") entered the room, introduced herself to Little, and began asking about the signs of the struggle:
Little agreed and signed a consent-to-search form. Detective Funk then read Little his Miranda 1 rights.
Detective Funk next asked Little if he would be willing to submit to a gunshot residue test and a buccal swab:
After a little more conversation, Detective Funk left the room.
Approximately ten minutes later, Detective Funk returned and asked Little for information about himself, including his full name, birthdate, social security number, and address. Detective Funk then asked about Victim, including questions about Little and Victim's relationship history. Detective Funk began to ask Little when he had last seen Victim and what he had been doing the prior day:
Detective Funk then inquired about that morning, Victim's other relationships, and Little's relationship with Victim, before returning to questioning about the previous night.
Detective Funk then asked about Little's physical condition, as she had previously brought him some potato chips in response to him stating he needed to eat:
Detective Funk questioned Little for about two more minutes before leaving the room.
The State obtained warrants for a gunshot residue test and buccal swab, which were then performed on Little.
The State charged Little with murder in the first degree, armed criminal action, tampering with physical evidence, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Little and the State agreed that Little would waive his right to a jury trial and that the State would not seek the death penalty.
Prior to trial, Little filed two motions to suppress, and the trial court held a hearing for both. The first motion sought to suppress statements made by Little to the Officers before ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reuter
...444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). "Custodial interrogation has two components: custody and interrogation." State v. Little , 604 S.W.3d 708, 716 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). "Custodial interrogation" means "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken in......
-
State v. Teel
...admissible if that evidence would have been inevitably discovered by law enforcement using other, legitimate means. State v. Little , 604 S.W.3d 708, 720 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). "For the inevitable-discovery doctrine to apply, the State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that proper......
-
State v. Ybarra
...of the charged offense unless police first inform the suspect of his or her rights under the Fifth Amendment." State v. Little , 604 S.W.3d 708, 716 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). "Custodial interrogation has two components: custody and interrogation." Id. We determine whether a person is in custody......
-
State v. Branson
...], 93 S.W.3d at 726 (citing [ Nix v. Williams ], 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) )). State v. Little , 604 S.W.3d 708, 720 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). In support of its position, the State relies upon the testimony of Corporal Fannen regarding the jail's standard booking ......