State v. Little, No. 39359

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtREINHARD; GUNN, P. J., and KELLY
Citation572 S.W.2d 871
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David LITTLE, Appellant. . Louis District, Division Three
Decision Date26 September 1978
Docket NumberNo. 39359

Page 871

572 S.W.2d 871
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
David LITTLE, Appellant.
No. 39359.
Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division Three.
Sept. 26, 1978.

Page 872

Fredman, Watkins, Fredman & Kopf, Richard A. Fredman, St. Louis, for appellant.

John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul R. Otto, Kathryn M. Krause, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.

REINHARD, Judge.

Defendant David Little appeals from a judgment of the trial court finding him guilty of robbery in the first degree. Defendant waived a jury. The court sentenced him to serve 13 years in prison. For reversal he argues that the court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress the identification testimony, and (2) in overruling his motion for a new trial because of the state's failure to make an opening statement.

Due to the issues raised, a brief recitation of the facts is necessary. On January 8, 1977, at around 11:30 a. m., a person approached the desk clerk in the Warwick Motor Inn, a motel in downtown St. Louis, and asked for change for a dollar. The desk clerk, Joseph W. Knott, opened the cash register and reached for the money. At this point, the person pointed a gun at Knott and demanded the money in the cash drawer. Knott dashed away to alert the switchboard operator of this occurrence and summon the police. Knott looked back toward the cash register and saw the robber reaching over the counter and into the cash drawer. The robber, whom Knott later identified as the defendant, then ran from the hotel's front entrance to make his getaway. Knott testified that he had the opportunity to observe the defendant for approximately two to three minutes.

The hotel's manager, William C. Hotze, and a hotel engineer, Charles Angel, were getting off of the hotel's elevator, located approximately 12 feet from the front desk, as the robber, identified by Hotze as defendant, was reaching into the cash drawer. Both hotel employees then chased the defendant out the front door and south on 15th toward Olive. At this point the robber stopped, turned around and pointed his gun at Hotze's head. The defendant then pulled

Page 873

the trigger twice; however, the gun misfired both times. The defendant then turned away and continued his getaway. Hotze continued his chase. At this point, off-duty Detective Denber Bonds, after observing this chase and hearing calls for help from Hotze, apprehended the defendant near the intersection of 15th and Olive. Detective Bonds testified that the defendant threw his gun and approximately $270.00 to the ground at this time.

The defendant was then given his Miranda warnings and taken to the Fourth District Detective Bureau. In a statement made in the presence of Detective Bonds, the defendant admitted taking the money from the hotel. Knott and Hotze were brought to the police station, within an hour of the incident, in order to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Ross v. State, No. 11552
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 1, 1980
    ...of the pretrial identification procedure and counsel could not be held ineffective for omitting to do a futile thing. State v. Little, 572 S.W.2d 871, 873(1, 2) (Mo.App. 1978). In other words, any number of non-errors cannot add up to an error. They Page 676 cannot be employed to gain succo......
  • State v. Phillips, No. 40924
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 18, 1980
    ...or lineup procedure, the identification testimony is admissible. State v. Harris, 571 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Little, 572 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Rutledge, supra, at Witness Edgar stood two feet from the holdup man for approximately five minutes under fluores......
  • State v. Anders, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 23, 1998
    ...the result was that "no prejudice was demonstrated." 700 S.W.2d 167, 168 (Mo.App.1985). Moreover, both State v. Little, 572 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App.1978) and State v. Williams, 575 S.W.2d 863 (Mo.App.1978) stand for the proposition that a defendant must show prejudice when the state fa......
  • State v. Hood, No. 13554
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 31, 1984
    ...and further assuming, without deciding, Page 424 that the point is viable for review, we find no prejudice to defendant. State v. Little, 572 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Mo.App.1978), and State v. Williams, 575 S.W.2d 863, 864 (Mo.App.1978), say that one of the purposes of an opening statement by the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Ross v. State, No. 11552
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 1, 1980
    ...of the pretrial identification procedure and counsel could not be held ineffective for omitting to do a futile thing. State v. Little, 572 S.W.2d 871, 873(1, 2) (Mo.App. 1978). In other words, any number of non-errors cannot add up to an error. They Page 676 cannot be employed to gain succo......
  • State v. Phillips, No. 40924
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 18, 1980
    ...or lineup procedure, the identification testimony is admissible. State v. Harris, 571 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Little, 572 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Rutledge, supra, at Witness Edgar stood two feet from the holdup man for approximately five minutes under fluores......
  • State v. Anders, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 23, 1998
    ...the result was that "no prejudice was demonstrated." 700 S.W.2d 167, 168 (Mo.App.1985). Moreover, both State v. Little, 572 S.W.2d 871 (Mo.App.1978) and State v. Williams, 575 S.W.2d 863 (Mo.App.1978) stand for the proposition that a defendant must show prejudice when the state fa......
  • State v. Hood, No. 13554
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 31, 1984
    ...and further assuming, without deciding, Page 424 that the point is viable for review, we find no prejudice to defendant. State v. Little, 572 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Mo.App.1978), and State v. Williams, 575 S.W.2d 863, 864 (Mo.App.1978), say that one of the purposes of an opening statement by the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT