State v. Patrick, No. 53598

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtSMITH; KAROHL, P.J., and KELLY
Citation757 S.W.2d 654
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ricardo PATRICK, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date26 July 1988
Docket NumberNo. 53598

Page 654

757 S.W.2d 654
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Ricardo PATRICK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 53598.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Three.
July 26, 1988.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied
Aug. 31, 1988.
Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 18, 1988.

Mary C. McWilliams, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Deborah L. Ground, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

SMITH, Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury of assault in the first degree, armed criminal action, and criminal possession of a short-barreled shotgun. He was sentenced by the court as a prior offender to three concurrent twenty year terms of imprisonment. We affirm.

Defendant makes no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence demonstrated that a police officer, Menard, after receiving information that defendant was in possession of a gun began following defendant as he walked up an alley. After defendant had walked some distance he pulled a sawed-off shotgun out of his trousers. Some distance further, as the police officer came around a corner, the defendant fired one shot at the police officer. The police officer fired three shots in response. Neither participant was struck. A chase ensued. Defendant discarded the gun and escaped. Several hours later he was apprehended at his home. Defendant testified he had gone directly home after the police officer arrived at the original

Page 655

scene, that he did not go where the officer said he did, and that he did not carry or shoot a shotgun.

On appeal defendant raises three allegations of error. Initially he complains that he was unduly restricted in his cross-examination of police officer Glenn. The matter arose when defense counsel asked Glenn, "Can you explain to the jury what the procedure is when an officer fires his gun." "A. As far as what?" "Q. As far as police procedure." Objection was made on relevancy grounds and sustained. Counsel stated she believed the question went to the motive of Menard testifying. In a subsequent offer of proof, defense counsel stated:

"I believe the Police procedure is that an investigation is conducted, the officer's gun is seized from him, it is testified, they check out the gun and there is an investigation internally within the Police Department every time an officer fires his gun and that there needs to be an explanation for that or the officer is reprimanded. I don't know the particulars of it because I don't know police procedures. I'm not a policeman and I think it goes to Officer Menard's interest in the case and his motive."

The offer of proof was denied on relevancy grounds.

An attempt to discover the interest, bias or motive of a witness is generally proper cross-examination. State v. Conley, 699 S.W.2d 50 (Mo.App.1985) [1, 2]. The question of the relevancy of such information is a determination left to the sound discretion of the trial court. We review only for an abuse of that discretion. Id. In making an offer of proof the relevancy of the matter sought to be introduced must be specifically and clearly articulated. State v. Umfrees, 433 S.W.2d 284 (Mo.1968) [1, 2]. The offer here did not meet that test. It did not articulate specifically how the questions asked of Glenn would demonstrate the motives or bias of Menard. It is therefore distinguishable from State v. Hunter, 544 S.W.2d 58 (Mo.App.1976) and State v. Ramos, 121 N.H. 863, 435...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • State v. Wilkins, No. 18518
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 15, 1994
    ...of that showing, we find no abuse of discretion. See State v. Kennedy, 854 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Mo.App.1993); State v. Page 148 Patrick, 757 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Mo.App.1988). Defendant's third point is Judgment affirmed. FLANIGAN, P.J., and PREWITT, J., concur. --------------- 1 All references to ......
  • State v. Baney, No. ED 104363
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 18, 2017
    ...1951) ). An attempt to discover the interest, bias, or motive of a witness is generally proper cross-examination. State v. Patrick , 757 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Mo.App.E.D. 1988) ; State v. Hunter , 544 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Mo.App. 1976) (recognizing the right to cross-examine a witness as to a witness'......
  • State v. Kennedy, Nos. 60228
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 15, 1993
    ...this case where the defendant did not indicate at trial the materiality or necessity of the absent witness' testimony. State v. Patrick, 757 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Mo.App.1988). Defendant concedes that no "offer of proof" was made at trial as to what the absent witness would have testif......
3 cases
  • State v. Wilkins, No. 18518
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 15, 1994
    ...of that showing, we find no abuse of discretion. See State v. Kennedy, 854 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Mo.App.1993); State v. Page 148 Patrick, 757 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Mo.App.1988). Defendant's third point is Judgment affirmed. FLANIGAN, P.J., and PREWITT, J., concur. --------------- 1 All references to ......
  • State v. Baney, No. ED 104363
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 18, 2017
    ...1951) ). An attempt to discover the interest, bias, or motive of a witness is generally proper cross-examination. State v. Patrick , 757 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Mo.App.E.D. 1988) ; State v. Hunter , 544 S.W.2d 58, 60 (Mo.App. 1976) (recognizing the right to cross-examine a witness as to a witness'......
  • State v. Kennedy, Nos. 60228
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 15, 1993
    ...this case where the defendant did not indicate at trial the materiality or necessity of the absent witness' testimony. State v. Patrick, 757 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Mo.App.1988). Defendant concedes that no "offer of proof" was made at trial as to what the absent witness would have testif......

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