State v. Mitchell, 47486
| Decision Date | 05 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 47486,47486 |
| Citation | 674 S.W.2d 184 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Stephen MITCHELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Henry Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., David C. Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
A jury found defendant Stephen Mitchell guilty of kidnapping, assaulting and robbing victim Roy Malone. The trial court sentenced defendant to three concurrent terms of life and thirty years in prison. He has appealed.
Defendant does not challenge the evidentiary sufficiency. Instead, here he claims plain error in excluding testimony of unendorsed alibi witnesses. He also claims error in failing to grant a mistrial when a policeman voluntarily referred to a prior arrest of defendant. These in turn.
Here defendant by his plain error point claims the court erred by sustaining the state's objection to the proposed alibi witnesses; they were first endorsed at trial. In his motion for new trial defense counsel pleaded the challenged witnesses "would have testified only as to the defendant's appearance and not to alibi ..." We note the state's jury arguments did not mention the missing alibi witnesses. The denial of their testimony was discretionary. See State v. Gooch, 659 S.W.2d 342 (Mo.App.1983). No error here.
By his preserved point defendant claims the court erroneously denied a mistrial. When the arresting police witness was asked how he located defendant he said police had an anonymous tip defendant lived somewhere in the 3500 block of Cozens. When asked what he did there he volunteered:
Defense counsel promptly asked for a mistrial for mention of past arrests. After a colloquy the court responded:
Defendant asked for no other relief. The state made no further mention of an arrest neither in the testimony nor in closing argument.
Here defendant cites State v. Martin, 506 S.W.2d 473[2-4] (Mo.App.1974), reversed when the trial judge on voir dire told the jury panel defendant was being tried under the habitual criminal act. That statement by the judge, unlike our case, referred to previous criminal convictions.
Defendant also cites State v. Lee, 486 S.W.2d 412[2-4] (Mo.1972). There conviction was reversed when at every stage of the trial state counsel referred to defendant's conviction on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moiser
...of that remark with much deference paid to the trial court's decision to allow such testimony. We find the reasoning of State v. Mitchell, 674 S.W.2d 184 (Mo.App.1984) to be dispositive of this issue. In State v. Mitchell, a police witness was asked how he located defendant from a tip that ......
-
State v. Chambers, 19511
...defendant's motion to strike "all" the testimony of the witness. See State v. Crawford, 619 S.W.2d 735, 740 (Mo.1981); State v. Mitchell, 674 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Warden, 591 S.W.2d 170, 172[5, 6] (Mo.App.1979). Defendant's second point has no Defendant's third point is t......
-
State v. Wooten, 51934
...often than not, we affirm the grant of the state's request to prevent an alibi witness from testifying, See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, 674 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Harris, 664 S.W.2d 677, 680-681 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Diamond, 647 S.W.2d 806, 807-808 (Mo.App.1982); State v. ......
-
Mitchell v. State, 52706
...sentenced to two life sentences and one thirty-year sentence to be served concurrently. His conviction was affirmed in State v. Mitchell, 674 S.W.2d 184 (Mo.App.1984). Movant seeks to vacate his convictions and sentences because of ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to prove ineffe......