State v. Meeks, 54954

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Citation770 S.W.2d 709
Docket NumberNo. 54954,54954
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bernard MEEKS, Appellant.
Decision Date11 April 1989

Page 709

770 S.W.2d 709
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Bernard MEEKS, Appellant.
No. 54954.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division One.
April 11, 1989.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court
Denied May 17, 1989.

Teoffice E. Cooper, Holly G. Simons, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant appeals his jury conviction for first degree robbery pursuant to § 569.020, RSMo 1986, for which he was sentenced as

Page 710

a persistent offender to life imprisonment. We affirm.

Defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. The evidence at trial consisted of the following: On December 4, 1984, at 1:20 p.m., Charter Bank was robbed. A man, later identified as defendant, wearing a red plaid shirt and glasses and brandishing a gun gave a note to a teller which read "Give me all your money or I'll kill you." The teller filled a bag with $7,800 and defendant left the bank.

That same afternoon, Dale Redus, a customer in the bank, noticed a black male wearing a red plaid shirt loitering in the bank in what he considered to be a suspicious manner. Redus observed the individual for three to four minutes at close range. Although Redus did not see the actual robbery, upon learning of the robbery from his wife, a bank employee, Redus stated he believed he had seen the robber.

Approximately three to four weeks after the robbery, the police contacted Redus. After giving police a description of the individual he observed in the bank, Redus viewed twenty photographs to try and identify the man. Redus eliminated sixteen of the photographs right away, and eventually eliminated all but two of the photographs. He could not say which of the two was the man he had seen in the bank. One of the two photographs was of defendant.

On March 2, 1985, Redus was flown to Oklahoma City to view a lineup. The lineup consisted of five men, one of whom was defendant. Redus picked two men from the lineup, but he was not sure which of the two was the man he had seen. One of these two men was defendant. At trial, Redus positively identified defendant as the man he had seen in the bank on the day of the robbery.

Defendant's sole point on appeal is that the in-court identification of defendant by Redus should have been suppressed because it was the product of impermissibly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Williams, ED 91326.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 3, 2009
    ...defendant was in both the photographic and physical line-ups does not alone render the line-up impermissibly suggestive. State v. Meeks, 770 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Mo.App. E.D.1989). In State v. Glessner, 918 S.W.2d 270, 277 (Mo.App. S.D.1996) The witness was unable to identify the defendant in a......
  • Nimrod v. State, WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 11, 1989
    ...770 S.W.2d 709 Billy G. NIMROD, STATE of Missouri, Respondent. No. WD 41063. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. April 11, 1989. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County; Lee E. Wells, Judge. Billy G. Nimrod, Pacific, pro se. William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, P......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT