State v. McLaurin, 48799
Decision Date | 19 March 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 48799,48799 |
Citation | 688 S.W.2d 56 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. W.T. McLAURIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Debra Buie Arnold, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John Munson Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
A jury found defendant W.T. McLaurin guilty of first degree burglary. The trial court sentenced him as a persistent offender to 30 years in prison. We affirm.
The only issue is whether the court abused its discretion in limiting defendant's cross-examination of police officer Ray. Defense counsel had sought to show an officer had kicked defendant after he had been arrested.
Evidence on the issue: First to arrive at the burglary scene was police officer Allen who later arrested defendant when he came out the back door. Just before this, officer Ray had been guarding the front door when defendant had tried to escape there but gave up when he saw officer Ray there. At trial defense counsel sought to cross-examine officer Ray, who had testified he had not seen defendant since the arrest at the burglary scene. This was about the alleged post-arrest kicking of defendant and defense counsel made this proffer:
The trial court sustained the prosecutor's objection, ruling: With that we agree.
As ruled in State v. Daniels, 649 S.W.2d 568 [3-4] (Mo.App.1983):
See also State v. Couvion, 655 S.W.2d 80 [6-8] (Mo.App.1983).
Defense counsel had admitted she was unsure if this officer was the one who allegedly struck defendant. This alleged incident was irrelevant. As ruled in State v. Hines, 583 S.W.2d 204 (Mo.App.1979): "[F]ishing expeditions by counsel in collateral matters must have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McLaurin v. State, 53755
...burglary and was sentenced as a persistent offender to 30 years in prison. We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. State v. McLaurin, 688 S.W.2d 56 (Mo.App.1985). Movant filed a pro se Rule 27.26 motion, asserting numerous claims for relief. Counsel was appointed to represent movant, a......
- State v. Tucker, WD