State v. Lyle
| Decision Date | 22 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 58195,58195,2 |
| Citation | 511 S.W.2d 817 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert Eugene LYLE, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Mark D. Mittleman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Willard B. Bunch, Public Defender, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Robert A. Simons, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Pursuant to a written waiver of his right to trial by jury, Robert Eugene Lyle was tried by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, and found guilty of the murder of Joetha Lewis. The sentence was life imprisonment, and he has appealed presenting only one issue: the voluntariness of his confession.
Appellant's automobile was seen near the place where Joetha Lewis was murdered. He lived in Kansas City, Kansas, and when he was notified that the police were looking for him, he went to the police, waived extradition, and was then taken to the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department. While there he signed a written confession in which he admitted that he struck Joetha Lewis on the head with a hammer, and then strangled her with a rope.
At the trial appellant objected to the admission in evidence of his confession, and a hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of the confession was held. Appellant did not offer any evidence on the merits of the charge against him, but he did testify at that part of the proceedings pertaining to the voluntariness of his confession, and we note that he affirmatively stated that the facts recited in his confession were true.
Although appellant claimed that the police did not give him the 'Miranda' warnings, he does not claim that he was not aware of those rights, and he admitted that he knew he did not have to make a statement. He identified his signed waiver of the 'Miranda' warnings. He does not contend that he was denied the right to confer with counsel. Shortly after he arrived at the Kansas City, Missouri, police station he was permitted to call a lawyer by the name of Anthony Russo, and later in the day the police sent an automobile to bring Mr. Russo to the police department so he could confer with appellant. In his testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress his confession, appellant affirmatively stated that he made no incriminating statement until after he conferred with Mr. Russo, and Mr. Russo testified that after he conferred with appellant as to whether he should make a statement, he 'left it up to him and his wife,' and that after they talked about it, appellant 'made up his mind that he wanted to give...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hamell
...trial court should not lightly be overturned, the evidence presented by appellant, though admittedly not conclusive, cf. State v. Lyle, 511 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Mo.1974), does satisfy the standard of some kind of factual showing in support of an allegation of manifest injustice under the plain ......
-
State v. Olds
...Preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard we adopt for such cases. State v. Hunter, 456 S.W.2d 314 (Mo.1970), and State v. Lyle, 511 S.W.2d 817 (Mo.1974), represent the most recent pronouncements by this Court on the standards by which to assess a finding of voluntariness. Hunter......
-
State v. Cooper, 10173
...findings and conclusion that the confession was voluntarily given and therefore constitutionally sound and admissible. State v. Lyle, 511 S.W.2d 817 (Mo.1974). The jury, under proper instruction (MAI-Cr 3.44), found the confession was voluntarily given. Defendant's proffered instruction was......
-
State v. Edwards
...it is the duty of the court to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine whether the confession is admissible in evidence. State v. Lyle, 511 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Mo. banc 1974). The proper and well-established procedure is to conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury on that issue, an......