State v. Madison, No. 36479

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtDOWD; WEIER, P.J., and RENDLEN
Citation537 S.W.2d 563
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Maurice MADISON, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One
Docket NumberNo. 36479
Decision Date06 April 1976

Page 563

537 S.W.2d 563
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Maurice MADISON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 36479.
Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One.
April 6, 1976.
Motion for Rehearing or Transfer Denied May 17, 1976.
Application to Transfer Denied July 12, 1976.

Page 564

Charles D. Kitchin, Public Defender, James C. Jones, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

DOWD, Judge.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of stealing from a person. § 560.156 RSMo 1969. 1 He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. We affirm.

On October 12, 1973, at approximately 1 p.m., the defendant and a companion entered a supermarket in the City of St. Louis. The defendant, with a newspaper and a candy bar in his hands, proceeded to stand in the checkout line. The customer ahead of the defendant in the line handed a $10 bill and a $20 bill to the checker to pay for purchases. As the checker started to put this money into the cash register drawer, the defendant grabbed the $20 bill from her hand. The checker reflexively snatched at the $20 bill and tore it. The defendant then threw down his portion of the $20 bill and fled from the store.

Hearing the checker's shouts, the store's manager and co-manager chased the suspect. The defendant and his companion were apprehended a short distance from the store by a policeman, who had seen the two men being chased down the alley. Both the defendant and his companion were carrying guns. The policeman placed the two men in the backseat of a police car. The checker was promptly brought to the police car and positively identified the defendant as the man who had grabbed the $20 bill from her hand in the store.

There was additional evidence that the defendant's fingerprint was found on the candy bar.

Defendant's first appellate contention is that the trial court erred in overruling his pretrial motion to suppress the checker's identification of the defendant. Defendant claims the process by which the defendant was identified in the police car was unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to an irreparably mistaken identification. We disagree.

It is not improper for the police to immediately return a freshly apprehended suspect to the scene of the crime for identification by one who has seen the suspect minutes before. State v. Maxwell, 502 S.W.2d 382(5)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • State v. Macke, No. 40311
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 8 January 1980
    ...set forth these objections in detail and with particularity in his motion for new trial as required by Rule 27.20(a). State v. Madison, 537 S.W.2d 563, 565 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Pride, 567 S.W.2d 426, 433-434 (Mo.App.1978). Nonetheless, we will address the substance of his argument that t......
  • State v. Pride, No. 39137
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 9 May 1978
    ...therefore should not be entitled to appellate review because they were not properly preserved. Rule 27.20(a), V.A.M.R.; State v. Madison, 537 S.W.2d 563, 565 At trial appellant objected to the prosecutor's statement about the rifle on the ground that it was speculative. The trial court over......
  • State v. Hollis, No. KCD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 29 June 1979
    ...his present complaints incorporated in his motion for a new trial, a condition mandatory for preservation for review. State v. Madison, 537 S.W.2d 563, 565(5) (Mo.App.1976); Rule This Court has nevertheless undertaken a careful examination of the record as it pertains to the conduct of the ......
  • State v. Carter, No. 39375
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 5 September 1978
    ...suspect to the scene of the crime for the purpose of allowing the witnesses to make an identification, e. g., State v. Madison, 537 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Mo.App.1976). In fact, prompt identification of a suspect may indicate to police whether to hold or release the suspect and thus whether to co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • State v. Macke, No. 40311
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 8 January 1980
    ...set forth these objections in detail and with particularity in his motion for new trial as required by Rule 27.20(a). State v. Madison, 537 S.W.2d 563, 565 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Pride, 567 S.W.2d 426, 433-434 (Mo.App.1978). Nonetheless, we will address the substance of his argument that t......
  • State v. Pride, No. 39137
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 9 May 1978
    ...therefore should not be entitled to appellate review because they were not properly preserved. Rule 27.20(a), V.A.M.R.; State v. Madison, 537 S.W.2d 563, 565 At trial appellant objected to the prosecutor's statement about the rifle on the ground that it was speculative. The trial court over......
  • State v. Hollis, No. KCD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 29 June 1979
    ...his present complaints incorporated in his motion for a new trial, a condition mandatory for preservation for review. State v. Madison, 537 S.W.2d 563, 565(5) (Mo.App.1976); Rule This Court has nevertheless undertaken a careful examination of the record as it pertains to the conduct of the ......
  • State v. Carter, No. 39375
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 5 September 1978
    ...suspect to the scene of the crime for the purpose of allowing the witnesses to make an identification, e. g., State v. Madison, 537 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Mo.App.1976). In fact, prompt identification of a suspect may indicate to police whether to hold or release the suspect and thus whether to co......
  • 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