State v. Mayo, 47777
| Citation | 680 S.W.2d 231 |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 47777,47777 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven MAYO, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Henry B. Robertson, St. Louis, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Carrie D. Francke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a jury conviction of second degree burglary, for which he was sentenced to nine years in the Department of Corrections. We affirm.
On December 18, 1982 at 2:40 a.m., two St. Louis Police Officers, responding to a burglar alarm, observed two men crawl out of a window at Reid Brothers Trucking Company. One officer pursued the men across a well-lit parking lot, where one subject climbed a fence and escaped leaving a glove entangled in the barbed wire topping the fence. The other was caught. The escapee, arrested a month later, was identified by the officer as the man who escaped. Defendant's sole point on this appeal concerns the admission into evidence of information allegedly derived by a police officer from defendant's accomplice who was arrested at the scene.
On direct examination of the police officer, the prosecutor refrained from asking questions about identification information obtained from defendant's accomplice. On cross examination, defense counsel elicited (1) the officer did not know defendant at the time of the crime, (2) the officer did not make a police report but gave information to his partner who did make one, (3) the accomplice was the only other person who could furnish information concerning the identity of the defendant for the police report, (4) the officer was aware of defendant's name when he caused the issuance of a warrant and (5) the police report was incomplete.
On redirect examination, the prosecutor referred to defense counsel's probes about information in the police report. At the bench, defense counsel objected to an attempt to elicit from the officer information provided by the accomplice. The trial court properly overruled this objection, because the question objected to did not attempt to elicit any such information. The court did state that it would not allow the admission of hearsay statements. Defense counsel made no objection thereafter to indirect references to the accomplice furnishing information to the officer allegedly furnished...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peal
...the basis of a claim of trial court error on appeal. See State v. McFall, 737 S.W.2d 748, 756 (Mo.App. S.D.1987); State v. Mayo, 680 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Mo.App. E.D.1984). Moreover, though the trial court initially instructed the jury to disregard evidence of Peal's unemployed status (notwiths......
-
Mayo v. State, 53016
...degree burglary by a jury and sentenced to nine years imprisonment. This court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. State v. Mayo, 680 S.W.2d 231 (Mo.App.1984). Appellant seeks post-conviction relief claiming he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the federal con......