State v. Moore
| Decision Date | 30 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 645 S.W.2d 109 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John W. MOORE, Jr., Appellant. 33407. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John R. Shank, Gladstone, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., and Priscilla Gunn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before NUGENT, P.J., and TURNAGE and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.
Defendant Moore was jury convicted of robbery in the first degree (Section 569.020, RSMo 1978) and sentenced to 30 years in the Department of Corrections. He did not offer any evidence nor did he question the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. The only point raised on appeal by defendant is that the weapon admitted in evidence was not connected with the defendant nor with the crime and therefore was not relevant or material and its introduction was prejudicial to him.
At 9:00 p.m. on June 22, 1981 the defendant, at gunpoint robbed the attendant of the Tommy Oil Company in North Kansas City, Missouri. The defendant took between $100 and $150 in cash. A female companion and defendant forced a lady customer from her car and took the car to make good an escape. A few moments later defendant was seen by a policeman in the stolen car. The car's lights were out and it had just run a red light at an intersection one block from the robbery scene. The police gave chase and next saw defendant on foot running through a scrap metal yard adjacent to the Sesco Building in North Kansas City. The yard had a 6 foot fence around it with another 6 inches of barbed wire at the top. Defendant was then seen and captured on top of the Sesco Building. He had neither a gun nor any money with him at the time of capture.
Eight days later in a pile of scrap metal in the yard next to the Sesco Building was discovered a .22 caliber pistol and approximately $99 in cash. The money and cash were within 8 inches of each other in the pile of scrap metal. No fingerprints were lifted from the weapon. Pictures were taken of the money and the weapon but were not admitted into evidence because they had not been made available to the defendant prior to trial. The $99 in cash was not admitted as the state could not establish a continuous chain of custody from the time it was taken by the North Kansas City police until trial.
The state, over objection, offered into evidence Exhibit # 5, the .22 caliber pistol. The oil company attendant when asked if it were the weapon used in the crime said he did not think it was the one defendant pointed at him as the one defendant used, "had wooden handles on it." The victim, whose car was taken, did not observe the weapon used. Defendant's sole point on appeal is the prejudicial effect of Exhibit # 5 that he claims was unconnected to himself or the crime.
The court allowed the weapon in evidence. The jury retired to deliberate at 9:27 a.m. and sometime thereafter it sent a note to the trial judge asking "to see the handgun listed as evidence." Exhibit # 5 was sent to the jury, and at 10:58 a.m. the guilty verdict was returned.
In State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bullington, WD
...in Charles was reversed when a gun totally foreign to the offense for which the accused was charged was introduced. In State v. Moore, 645 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1982), relied upon by Bullington, a weapon found in the defendant's path of flight but not identified by the victim as the robbery we......
-
State v. Perry, WD
...by the following cases: State v. Holbert, 416 S.W.2d 129 (Mo.1967); State v. Wynne, 353 Mo. 276, 182 S.W.2d 294 (1944); State v. Moore, 645 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1982); State v. Fristoe, 620 S.W.2d 421 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 563 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Davis, 530 S.W.2d 7......
-
State v. Thrasher
... ... The erroneous admission of the record should not be declared harmless "unless it can be said to be so without question, and that in order to declare so the record should demonstrate that the jury disregarded or was uninfluenced by the improper evidence." State v. Moore, 645 S.W.2d 109, ... 110 (Mo.App.1982); State v. Charles, 572 S.W.2d 193, 199 (Mo.App.1978). We cannot say without question that the jury here disregarded or was uninfluenced by the objectionable portion of the hospital report ... Apart from the complainant's testimony, the ... ...
-
State v. Speaks
..."[t]he legal principles in cases like Charles are not to be winked at or ignored nor to be treated as so much pap." State v. Moore, 645 S.W.2d 109, 110 (Mo.App. W.D.1982). We are duly cognizant of these admonitions as we address Defendant's On the other hand, weapons found at or near a crim......