State v. McCrary, 56128
| Decision Date | 10 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56128,No. 2,56128,2 |
| Citation | 478 S.W.2d 349 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald McCRARY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Bell, Fullwood, Wilson & Harris, by James A. Bell, Allen I. Harris, St. Louis, for appellant.
By an information alleging three prior felony convictions in 1961 (one of which was for illegal sale of a narcotic drug) defendant was charged with illegal possession of heroin, a narcotic drug, in August, 1969. Sections 195.020 and 556.280, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. Defendant waived a jury and the case was tried before the court. The court found defendant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of ten years. Section 195.200(2). Defendant appeals. We affirm.
Defendant relies on two points for reversal of his conviction: (1) that the court erred in failing to suppress evidence (heroin) seized in a search of his person, because there was no probable cause for his arrest or the search; (2) that the court erred in admitting the testimony of a police chemist, because there was a break in the chain of custody of the substance she described as heroin.
By agreement, defendant's motion to suppress evidence was heard and considered in connection with the evidence on guilt or innocence.
Burleigh Howell, a St. Louis ploice officer, testified that on August 18, 1969, at about 10:45 p.m., he saw defendant driving an automobile wighout taillights and directed him to pull his automobile over to the curb near 5501 Page in the City of St. Louis; that defendant stopped at the curb, got out of his automobile, and walked toward the officer standing beside the police car; that he told defendant he was under arrest for driving without taillights; that defendant handed him a driver's license receipt; that as he was writing out a ticket or summons for the defective automobile offense, defendant suddenly reached for his right hip pocket; that this alarmed him because he did not know whether defendant had a weapon; that he grabbed defendant's right arm, put handcuffs on him, and found in defendant's right rear pocket two condoms full of white powder which defendant said was heroin; that he then told defendant he was under arrest for possession of heroin.
Officer Howell further testified that he also found on defendant's person two white envelopes containing red and white pills; that he placed his initials on the condoms and white envelopes and placed them and their contents in an evidence envelope, placed his initials on it and delivered it to Joe Stevens, a police chemist, at the police department laboratory; that Mr. Stevens opened the evidence envelope, removed the contents, examined some of the white powder, and immediately returned the contents to the envelope; that the initials on the exhibit (the evidence envelope and its contents, including the heroin-filled condoms and the two white envelopes) are his initials which he had placed there before delivery to the laboratory.
Merilyn Ruemmler, a chemist at the police department laboratory, testified that she obtained the exhibit (the evidence envelope and its contents), later identified by Officer Howell as being the items delivered by him to the laboratory, from the evidence locker, tested it for the presence of narcotics a few minutes before appearing in court, and found that the white powder was heroin. She further testified that the ordinary routine and usual course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCrary v. State
...was lawful and that there was probable cause for the search and seizure incident to the arrest, and affirmed the judgment. State v. McCrary, 478 S.W.2d 349 (Mo.1972). Then on January 30, 1973, McCrary filed this motion to vacate. He alleged some eleven grounds only two of which are preserve......
-
State v. Achter
...exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a 'reasonable' search under that Amendment.' See State v. McCrary, 478 S.W.2d 349 (Mo.1972) (traffic violation). A search is incident to an arrest only if conducted substantially contemporaneously with the arrest and ......
-
State v. Gustin
...therein were in the same or like condition when introduced at trial as when Sharpe purportedly received them. Citing State v. McCrary, 478 S.W.2d 349 (Mo.1972), and State v. Dee, 752 S.W.2d 942 (Mo.App.1988), Defendant proclaims, "To be admissible, the evidence must be in the same or in lik......
-
State v. Murray, 63216
...of demonstrating there has been no improper tampering with the exhibit. State v. Taylor, 486 S.W.2d 239 (Mo.1972). In State v. McCrary, 478 S.W.2d 349 (Mo.1972), the testimony showed that a police officer removed the evidence from defendant, took it to the police department laboratory where......