State v. Mahone, 48722
Decision Date | 13 August 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 48722,48722 |
Citation | 699 S.W.2d 60 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Orlando Ray MAHONE, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Helton Reed, St. Louis, for appellant.
John Munson Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of first degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment. We affirm.
The victim, John "Jessie" Moore, arrived at the crime scene in his automobile accompanied by two Busby sisters, Bessie and Delisa. Delisa went into the Busby house nearby. Bessie then observed Donald Stewart (Baby Jock) and defendant, who went by the name of Ray, approach the automobile. Bessie left the vehicle and went to the house. Stewart and defendant, each armed with a gun, entered Moore's car from the driver's and passenger's door respectively. Stewart ordered Moore to "empty his pockets." Shots were fired and Moore was pushed from the vehicle. More shots were fired by both assailants. Moore ran down the street, then came back to the Busby home and collapsed on the steps of the porch. Police and paramedics arrived and the latter classified Moore as unconscious and in shock. He was described as thrashing around and gasping for breath when the ambulance arrived. After being placed in the ambulance he temporarily regained consciousness and upon the fourth inquiry by the police officer as to who shot him, he stated "Baby Jock and Ray." Moore died on the way to the hospital from massive blood loss from a wound in the abdomen. Wounds sustained by him were from two different weapons. Bessie and her mother, who witnessed the shooting, both identified Stewart and defendant as the assailants. A next door neighbor, a sister of Bessie's mother, identified Stewart but could not identify the second assailant. Stewart was the father of Delisa's child and a frequent visitor at the Busby home. Delisa died prior to trial. Defendant was arrested within hours after the shooting at his home. Stewart was with him at the time of the arrest. Defendant presented an alibi defense.
Defendant raises seven contentions of error on appeal. The first challenges admission of Moore's statement of the identity of his attackers. This contention is based on an alleged lack of evidence of Moore's belief that he was dying and the alleged absence of evidence that Moore knew defendant so that he could identify him. The state argues that the statement was admissible despite its hearsay nature both under the dying declaration exception and under the excited utterance exception. The former requires that the declaration be uttered while the declarant believes death is imminent and has abandoned all hope of recovery. State v. Carr, 610 S.W.2d 296 (Mo.App.1980) . These beliefs, if in fact they are two separate beliefs rather than the same belief expressed differently, may be inferred from the declarant's condition and other circumstances which indicate his apprehension of imminent death. State v. Carr, supra. An excited utterance is admissible if the declarant has been subjected to a startling event, makes a statement before there is time to fabricate, and that statement relates to the circumstances of the occurrence. State v. Boyd, 669 S.W.2d 232 (Mo.App.1984) [1, 2]. The statement made by Moore qualifies under either theory. Moore's physical condition at the time of the statement was that of a man gravely wounded lapsing in and out of consciousness with massive internal bleeding. The statement was made minutes prior to his death and was the last utterance he made. The conditions were sufficient to infer Moore's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hayes
...inferred from the declarant's condition and other circumstances which indicate his apprehension of imminent death." State v. Mahone, 699 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App. E.D. 1985). "It is the impression of almost immediate death rather than the rapid succession of death which renders the statement a......
-
State v. Minner
...the declarant's condition and other circumstances which indicate his apprehension of imminent death.'" Id. (quoting State v. Mahone, 699 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo.App. E.D.1985)). If the declarant believes, based on his condition, that he will die almost immediately, that is sufficient to demonstra......
-
State v. Minner, No. WD70338 (Mo. App. 3/9/2010)
...the declarant's condition and other circumstances which indicate his apprehension of imminent death.'" Id. (quoting State v. Mahone, 699 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985)). If the declarant believes, based on his condition, that he will die almost immediately, that is sufficient to demonst......
-
State v. Paschall
...inferred from the declarant's condition and other circumstances which indicate his apprehension of imminent death." State v. Mahone , 699 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985) ; State v. Hayes , 88 S.W.3d 47, 63 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). Thus, in the absence of an express statement, a declarant's ......
-
Chapter 8 801 Definitions
...fact and not a mere conclusion or expression of opinion based upon collateral facts or hearsay rather than observation.” State v. Mahone, 699 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). In considering whether the declaration is a product of the excitement or rather was produced through reflection, ......
-
§804 Hearsay Exceptions: Declarant Unavailable
...was imminent and that there was no hope of recovery." State v. Hayes, 88 S.W.3d 47, 63 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002); see also State v. Mahone, 699 S.W.2d 60 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985); State v. Proctor, 269 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. 1954). Whether the declaration was so made is a question for the court to determin......
-
§803 Hearsay Exceptions: Availability of Declarant Immaterial
...fact and not a mere conclusion or expression of opinion based upon collateral facts or hearsay rather than observation." State v. Mahone, 699 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). In considering whether the declaration is a product of the excitement or was produced through reflection, reasoni......
-
Section 23.74 Spontaneous Declarations and Excited Utterances
...statement is made before there is time to fabricate, and if the statement relates to the circumstance of the occurrence. State v. Mahone, 699 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985); State v. Pflugradt, 463 S.W.2d 566, 572 (Mo. App. W.D. 1971). The statement or utterance must be a reaction to th......