State v. McCormick
| Citation | 426 S.W.2d 62 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 53157,No. 2,53157,2 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donnie Ray McCORMICK, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Michael P. Riley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Charles Clayton, Clarksville, Philip Schaper, Jr., Bowling Green, for appellant.
PRITCHARD, Commissioner.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether appellant was denied his constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States by reason of the trial court's refusal to grant his pretrial motion, made as a poor person, to take depositions and for stenographic services.
By the verdict of a jury appellant was found guilty of the commission of the crime of murder in the first degree. Having been found to be a second offender under § 556.280, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., appellant was sentenced by the court to imprisonment for life in the Department of Corrections.
Appellant's motion to take depositions and for free stenographic services therefor is to this effect: He moves the court to order and direct the court reporter or some other qualified stenographer or public stenographer, who is also a notary public, to take and transcribe the depositions of James M. Marshall, J. W. Lindsey, Robert Cashman, Shelby Ward, Henry A. Sweets, M.D., J. O. Mudd, Alberta Hoover, Maybelle Beuterbaugh, Gene Grammer, and John Wesley Penn, at the expense of the State of Missouri, or County of Pike. It was stated in the motion that appellant was charged with the crime of murder in the first degree; had pleaded not guilty thereto on his arraignment; that he did not in fact commit said crime and that it was necessary to properly prepare his defense that depositions be taken of each of said persons and of any other persons who might be endorsed as witnesses by the state; that he had no funds to employ a court reporter or stenographer; and that he is indigent. The motion was overruled on September 19, 1966, and the trial began on February 27, 1967. The persons named in the motion testified at the trial except J. W. Lindsey, Robert Cashman, and Maybelle Beuterbaugh.
Supreme Court Rule 25.10, V.A.M.R., provides: 'A defendant in any criminal case pending in any court may obtain the deposition of any witness to be used in such case conditionally.' By the following Rule 25.11 it is provided that 'the method of taking such depositions shall be governed by the statutes or rules applicable to civil actions, except as otherwise provided herein.' See §§ 545.380, 545.390 and 545.400, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. The matter of the right of a defendant in a criminal case to take depositions has long been established by said statutes and rules. See Ex parte Welborn, 237 Mo. 297, 141 S.W. 31, 33(1), Appellant did not ask for a commission to issue to take depositions, but the basic request addressed to the court is that the stenographic services for the taking and transcribing of the witnesses' testimony be paid for by the state or county. It was held upon this precise question in State v. Aubuchon, Mo., 381 S.W.2d 807, 812(2--4), that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...(Mo.1964). Accord, State v. Wallace, 504 S.W.2d 67, 69-70 (Mo.1973); State v. Bibbs, 461 S.W.2d 755, 759 (Mo.1970). See, State v. McCormick, 426 S.W.2d 62, 63 (Mo.1968) cert. denied, 394 U.S. 930, 89 S.Ct. 1199, 22 L.Ed.2d 460, habeas corpus relief denied, McCormick v. Swenson, 328 F.Supp. ......
-
State v. Pride
...the inability to take such depositions was prejudicial to the preparation of his case. Appellant contends that the statute plus State v. McCormick, 426 S.W.2d 62 (Mo. banc 1968), cert. den. 394 U.S. 930, 89 S.Ct. 1199, 22 L.Ed.2d 460 (1969), made the granting of this kind of pretrial motion......
-
McCormick v. Swenson, N71 C 13.
...of conviction and imposition of sentence; that the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on appeal (State v. McCormick, Mo., 426 S.W.2d 62); that thereafter a petition for certiorari was denied in the United States Supreme Court (394 U.S. 930, 89 S.Ct. 1199, 22 L.E......
-
McCormick v. Ross, 74-1546
...Ralls County, Missouri, on February 27, 1968. 1 The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Missouri. State v. McCormick, 426 S.W.2d 62 (Mo.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 930, 89 S.Ct. 1199, 22 L.Ed.2d 460 (1969). Since the affirmance McCormick has waged a continuous, alb......