State v. McCollum, 11381
| Decision Date | 22 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 11381,11381 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mark McCOLLUM, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Mary C. P. Pincus, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
William F. Ringer, Powell, Ringer & Ringer, Dexter, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant was convicted by a Stoddard County jury of escaping from the county jail by means of a dangerous instrument (§ 575.210, V.A.M.S. 1979) and sentenced to twenty years. We affirm.
On November 15, 1978, defendant was arrested and placed in the Stoddard County jail on a charge of tampering with a motor vehicle. Defendant was incarcerated in a part of the jail known as the "bullpen". At trial, defendant admitted he escaped from the jail on January 12, 1979, but denied that he was involved in a conspiracy to escape or that he had any prior knowledge of this escape. He asserted that he was awakened on the morning of January 12, 1979 and asked if he wanted to leave the jail. The State contended that defendant had been involved in a conspiracy to escape and based its case on the testimony of Ronita Haws.
Ronita Haws and Carol Fouts were female prisoner-trustees at the Stoddard County jail and had access to the entire jail. Ronita testified that she had first discussed a plan with Carol to escape with the men in the "bullpen" on January 10, 1979. She stated that Carol told her that the men in the "bullpen" would create a disturbance and that they were to get the deputy's gun.
On January 11, 1979, Carol obtained a hammer from the basement of the jail, which she hid under her mattress and later in the jail's kitchen. On January 12, 1979, about 3:00 a. m. a disturbance was created in the "bullpen". Ronita and Carol went downstairs, confronted the deputy, and asked him what he was going to do about it. The deputy refused to do anything and went back to sleep on a couch in the jail's lobby. Ronita and Carol went back to the "bullpen", where Carol told defendant and Dale Abel that the deputy refused to check on the disturbance. Carol and Ronita then went into the kitchen where Carol grabbed the hammer, approached the deputy lying on the couch, and struck him on the head. They grabbed the keys and released defendant who was waiting with his packed suitcase, and Dale Abel from the "bullpen". Defendant, Carol, Abel and Ronita fled the jail. Defendant was arrested two days later with Carol Fouts, in Dexter, Missouri.
Defendant's first claim of error is that the trial court erred in allowing Ronita Haws to testify to statements made by Carol Fouts that incriminated the defendant. Defendant asserts that, even if these statements came within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, he has been denied his constitutional rights of confrontation and cross-examination by the application of this rule.
This assignment does not point out the precise testimony objected to, nor what actions or rulings of the trial court are sought to be reviewed, in violation of Rule 30.06(d), V.A.M.R. Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978). As such, our review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court committed "plain error", such that a "manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom." Rule 30.20, V.A.M.R.
Apparently, the defendant is contending that the trial court should not have permitted the following testimony of Ronita Haws:
(1) statements made during the conversation with Carol Fouts on January 10, 1979, that Carol was to be a party to leaving the jail and that the men in the "bullpen" would create a disturbance so that Carol could grab the deputy's gun;
(2) statements made by Carol to the deputy on January 12, 1979, asking him if he was going to go back into the "bullpen" when the disturbance occurred; and
(3) a statement by Carol to defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Danforth
...by a co-conspirator made in furtherance of the conspiracy. State v. Garton, 371 S.W.2d 283, 287-88 (Mo.1963); State v. McCollum, 598 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App.1980). Nevertheless, if the declaration is made before the formation of the conspiracy with which defendant is charged, it is inadmiss......
-
State v. Hodge, 13154
...of a coconspirator as it was obviously not made in the furtherance of the object of an unlawful combination. See State v. McCollum, 598 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App.1980). Although it might be considered, at least in part, a statement against the penal interest of Kenneth McCurdy, generally in M......
-
State v. Cornman, 66444
...not present when such statements or declarations were made. State v. Garton, 371 S.W.2d 283, 287-88 (Mo.1963); State v. McCollum, 598 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App.1980). The evidence required to show the existence of a conspiracy for the purpose of admitting into evidence a statement made by a c......
-
State v. Sanner, 12755
...are admissible against another coconspirator or coactor not present when such statements or declarations are made. State v. McCollum, 598 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App.1980). Proof of a common criminal purpose, acted upon by the parties, is sufficient to show a criminal conspiracy. State v. Sieke......